Wikipedia talk:List of bad article ideas/Archive 1

message: I think "Writing an article about a subject in which you are strongly biased to." should be added.
: Surely it's possible to be strongly biased to a particular subject, and still manage to write a fair article about it?  Cai 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you haven't come across any, but there have been articles added wherein the only content was a sentence fragment. Шизомби 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strongly biased 

message: I don't understand why writing an article only hard core fans could care about, like star trek.  Shouldn't this be a complete repository of all Human Knowledge? Epachamo 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --cesarb 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek

message: If you feel anybody could be acting like a troll remember Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls.  
(For great justice may also not be a Troll, but if you think He/She is ...)--E-Bod 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF? Stop making personal attacks, and address the issue of why you insist on keeping POV edits. For great justice. 18:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you two need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down for a second. How about a 24 hour break from editing this article for both parties? Henrik 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  You are not a Troll.  Please don't Try to Revert your edits into the article.  Now the argument has more than one person on each side but earlier when you were the only one on your side you shouldn't have kept reverting.--E-Bod 17:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot understand how For great justice has 3 times Deleted my coments on her talk page without resonding to them going so far as to remove a Template:Drmmt without a resonse (Oh the Irony).  If anyting my coment on this talk page should be romoved and moved to For great justice's talk page not the other way arond.  Anyway I Find it hopless to respond to all of For great justice requests for a link to policy if He/She won't even resond to a Template:Drmmt Which states it's removal is agaist policy.  I keep linking To Policy after Policy and even my opoligys have bee called personal Atacked by him/her.  I have given up resong to For great justice untill i get a resonse fom For great justice  This coment does not belong on this talk page but rather For great justice's talk page but for some rason For great justice keeps removing my comments from her page as a a personal attack and request i make the comment on the approprat talk page--E-Bod 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls 

message: the street you live on? Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? Isn't that still there? (Or am I missing something?) Henrik 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And what happened to... 

message: Does anyone know why the link for the above (see first bullet) points to the Wikipedia article? (I reviewed the edit history, it has always been this way.) Is this intended as an example of an "organization"? Perhaps it would be more useful to point it to a specific policy or guideline? (I've looked for one but it is eluding me.) In the absence of a policy or guideline, I think would make more sense if this pointed to the organization article, but I didn't want to make the change without discussing it in case it was written this way for a reason. Accurizer 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - I changed it. For great justice. 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this was an attempt to illustrate how these "rules" need to be broken sometimes (using a some dry humor).  That is, we would never delete an article on a famous organization (like Wikipedia), even if made by a member.  For instance, if a well intentioned person made an article for a famous international charity they personally belong to, we would actually welcome that article, not delete.  However, I doubt readers will get the point, so I'm supporting For great justice.'s change.  Fortunately, we have Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create which makes the point with three nice examples. --Rob 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked it linking to wipidia becose it was playfull.  Other orginizations don't apply to this though--E-Bod 04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your organization 

message: 1.  How about instead of saying under each topic that it need to be verifiable and that being extremely notable frees it from this list to the top or bottom.
We would say that you shouldn't create articles about things relevant to you but that they are allowed to exist.
#Articles need to be noteworthy and articles extremely noteworthy are exempt form this list.
2.  The link to Wikipedia for instance is notable enough to have an article and also.  We the editors do not Work for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is the World’s and so creating an article about it is not a violation of this guideline.  Anyway is User:The Cunctator (the first edit for the page is probably the creator of the page) a Professional (is paid) Wikipedian.  and even if he is it’s just a joke to link to the page and it is nice that the policies not be so strict.  The whole point of the policies is that they are only here to guide or as something to fall back to when issues arise--E-Bod 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact that it would be misleading and not true, there's nothing wrong with what I think you're proposing. Frankly though, I am having difficulty understanding you. You might try running your contributions through a spellchecker before you post them. For great justice. 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  I just spellchecked what I said before.  Could you clarify what part of my statement you think is misleading.  About the second part that I now labeled 2 I meant to say that the link to Wikipedia is a clever inside joke that people can think what they want it to mean. 
--E-Bod 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I am going to stop watching this page for a while so don't expect me to respond to a coment i made on this page.  If you feel a coment i made agaist another user was inaproprat you can remove it (aslong as you are not the person it was directed against). Sorry--E-Bod 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I am now watcing the page gain--E-Bod 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Stoped watcing this page
 

message: *Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles
How about adding the above section. Citation signal Or we could say A better use of your time or If you feel you really need to create a new article.  (sorry I'm still not Watching this page due to )E-Bod 03:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contra 

message: Does this look like about 33 edits to you (because it is).  Maybe we should use Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox until we can stop getting into revert wars over everything.  All I can see is the Guideline getting Wordier and less friendly.  With very little constructive contributions.  It is so annoying watching this page get worse and worse I just can't keep it on my watch list
I am proposing all Changes that could be debated (and all changes that are reverted once) be made on/moved to Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox because this is Ridiculous.  Be Bold does not mean every other edit should be a revert--E-Bod 03:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to Touch up Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas/Sandbox because we can always link to and compare it's history and use it to describe controverial edits we are thinking of making.  We can use this to say i think A looks better than B becose of X,Y & Z.  Once this looks Decent and we agree on it then we can move it into the Guideline.  The Guideline should be quick and easy to read and link to other relevent Guidelines and Policies--E-Bod 05:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ps.  I am not requesting a reqirment for people to not be bold and sugest small changes to the artilce.  I Only meant to use this to sugest Changes that are or could be debated untill we come to a resoution.  Changes that are compramises can be made to the main page but if you think the whole change should be removed then i am suggesting you use this Sandbox page.--E-Bod 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Stop The Edit Wars On this Page''' 

message: This Posible future Edit has Major changes and Reverts.  Tell me what you like and Don't Like about it.  Feel free to modify it and propose the change under mine.  This change is made in a Sandbox I made so we can show our big changes without big revert wars.--E-Bod 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can agree with parts and disagree with other parts of this proposed edit--E-Bod 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the see also and Contra section after fixing it up and added alot of links to real policies so the sandbox version is not longer up to date but it does illistrate some important changes--E-Bod 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated Proposed changes that we should talk about before we make. PS i made the sandbox for Big changes people might object to.--E-Bod 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Big change