Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions. Reading the debate, there seems to be clear consensus from those unconnected with the two projects that they should be merged. There also seems to be acceptance of this fact by both sides of the argument. Given that this page cannot outright determine policy and given that its goal is exactly the sort of thing a WikiProject is for, and given my reading of the debate, I have closed this debate as a move. Steve block talk 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Olympic conventions

This is inappropriate for the Wikipedia: namespace. This is a sham designed to avoid the regularly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics#Tagalong at Wikipedia:Olympic conventions. Furthermore, it was created by a user who views it as his private domain, claiming on User:JP06035 that "I created this series of debates which will now stand as current Wikipedia policy." This further verifies the deliberate attempt to give this page validity which it does not have. Gene Nygaard 14:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Gene Nygaard 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rename - whilst agreeing with some of Gene's points, I believe the action of deletion is too harsh. There is need for this type of debate. However as Gene points out this does not "make" wikipedia policy. All we should aim to do is amonst a core set of "olympics" editors establish our agreed way for working and then seek to encourage other editor's of the merits of our agreements. If these are challenged for good reason then our agreement should be open to amendment or change. Thus this page should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions becoming a formal part of that project, subject to all normal WikiProject procedures. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Something similar could be started under the aegis of the WikiProject, if the project members so desire. This irregularly formed bastard child should not be given any undue credibility by being made a subpage of that project. What's mainly lacking is any notice to the members of that project before the actions taken on this sham to avoid that project. Furthermore, putting it there now wouldn't facilitate discussion, because the "owner" of this page nominated for deletion has improperly closed all the voting on all the issues on that page, after about a week of discussion on his obscure, unpublicized, irregularly formed and improperly described "forum". Gene Nygaard 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

well Gene, you can't discuss forever...my cut off point was about a week and a half, so that's your problem if you didn't get there in time to make your votes. That's the same cut off for regular deletions and notices on WIki, right? I offered for you to bring up the diuscussion again, but you dsidn;'t want to. You just want to runit this for the rest of us don't you? Its horrible that such people exist on Wikipedia. And for your information, I don't "own" it...I would be happy to share the responsibility of "caretaker" with any person trustable and nice enough to do so, and right now, it doesn't look like it would ever be you! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Monicasdude 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per G. Nygaard. I suppose a redirect is NOT in order, given the possible confusion regarding gods and goddesses, for which reason the proper wikiproject is named Sports Olympics -- though it should be named Modern Sports Olympics. Xoloz 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made a posting at the talk page proposing a name change, either to my suggestion above, or (better, I think) Modern Olympic Games. Xoloz 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's clear to me that there is intraproject squabble on-going, with good-faith partisans on each side. I suggest that they settle this at the respective talk pages; I abstain for now. Xoloz 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Enthusiasm of editors and content for this topic is welcome but the scope of this article appears to be fully covered by the scope of other articles. bobblewik 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. However, the suggestions for standards should be Merged into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics and the voting restarted with full input from that group. Maelwys 16:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think actually merging them would be a good idea. Some should be reworded before ever being proposed, building on what the participants know from earlier discussions, reducing ambiguity, etc. Just make a note of them now so you can bring it up, and start over with a clean slate. Gene Nygaard 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and allow the current members of the Olympics Wikiproject to recreate if wanted. Sue Anne 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rename/Move - It would be a shame to lose all the proposals that have already been made (some of which are entirely sensible) and the discussion on them. I think this should be moved to the proper WikiProject, if they will agree to take it under their wing. If not, delete it. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Gene, you sicken me. Just because you don't agree with the consensuses that have arisen from this debate doesn't mean that this is a bad collaboration. I've worked very hard to get this page to the status it is at and it still needs to be worked on, I agree. I believe your reason for nomination is harsh, in deed. I created this page, not to take away from the WikiProject in mention, but to help it out. There was no debate that was going on on that page and the need for structure on these pages was more than high. No one was agreeing on anything so I started this page for the better, not the worse. I have had a lot of people say good things about this page and I am astounded that someone would think that it is a bad thing; clearly, Gene, you oppose the idea for a personal reason and that's not good enough for Wikipedia. I would be ashamed to vote "Delete" on this page if you havn't once looked at the archives that were produced. It truely would hurt me and the rest of the Wikipedians who have worked on this page since day one to get it to the position it is at now. Please rethink your votes, as the sake of 3 weeks of work are about to go down the drain. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Jared, try not to let this get you down. I tried to phrase my comments in a way that acknowledges your work and that of others. I agree that Gene can sometimes use harsh ways of expressing himself, try not to react. But if he is wrong in the *idea* then so are the rest of us that voted the same way. I would not like you to feel hurt. bobblewik 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's not getting me down, believe me, its getting me frusterated; how could someone live knowing that they had someone else's work deleted because of a personal opinion. If Gene doesn't believe that metrics should be abbreviated the way it was decided, that's his problem. I told him I would be glad to reissue that debate so that he may voice his opinion, but as for that...all he says is "It wasn;t a consensus" but doesn't say why. It seems to me he is just jelous of the site that I made. I hope you "Delete" voters understand what I am trying to put across. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Jared, it's not just about this one issue. Although, it certainly brings it to a head because it does directly conflict with the Manual of Style. I've brought your handling of the page up before. You started the page and considered it your project to structure and develop as you wanted. That's not a great first step to building consensus. A "vote" of 9/6/0/1 is barely a majority and certainly isn't consensus ... especially when it directly conflicts with already established policy in the Manual of Style. It's also not just Gene that has raised issue over some of the decisions on the Olympics Convention page. Policy is fluid. It doesn't go well with a "you missed the vote, live with it" type of attitude. Sue Anne 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't be about this one issue, because if it is, it would be under false pretext to delete this series of articles. I'm sorry that I did not get other peoples' ideas before starting it (although I did when I began to manage it better), because this was my first major contribution to WikiPedia and I guess I didn't know what I was up against. Please forgive me for being a jerk and an "owner" of the page if that's thew way you made it out to be. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP as is per Jared's vote and explanation above. To delete this large body of work because you may not agree with its findings is ridiculous. It is both a shame and a great disappointment that Wikipedia allows for a disgruntled user to tear down and undo all of the work MANY contributors have given three weeks of effort and teamwork to just because he or she may not like it. *shakes head* --Caponer 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this has a lot less to do with not agreeing with the findings, and a lot more to do with not aggreeing with the validity of the findings, or the manner in which they were discovered. Yes, people on that page did good work (which is why I voted that the basis for that work should be merged into the proper place) but they did it in the wrong place, in an unclear manner, and without the proper opportunity for input from the people of the Wikiproject. Maelwys 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There've been notices for 3 or more weeks; its your fault if you missed out on a good oportunity. Why should we start over, if a consensus has already been reached...because you didn't feel like doing it then, but decided now you want to join? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you ever get the foolish idea that a Wikipedia "consensus" is permanent, and no consensus decision can be reconsidered? Monicasdude 22:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, is one of the major pitfalls of operating outside the stricture of the established procedures for WikiProjects—renegade, irregularly formed pages like this one can well to be operated by someone determined not to be bound by the normal rules. Gene Nygaard 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aparently you don't understand, but time and again I state that these consenses (if that's the plural form) are NOT set in stone. In fact, take this as an example; one of the recent decisions was on using women as the generic term for all olympics articles. That had a good consensus, but one later pointed out that the IOC uses Ladies for skating and skiing. Without fuss or argument, I allowed him/her to put it up for argument again and now it is currently ditting on the discussion section of the main page waiting to be implimented as a resolved on March 9. I believe that that user is happy that he civally got his point across, and now it is again up for the people to decide. That's all you had to do, Gene, but instead you attempt to ruin it for the rest of us. Again I state: I would absolutely agree to reconsider a consensus and any person can resubmit a discussion point for redebate. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Far from bolstering your case, the "ladies" example illustrates the problem of renegade pages with heavy-handed, autocratic "owners" who feel that reopening the issue is something that can only be accomplished at the whim of that owner.

It isn't in your power to reconsider existence of a consensus. None ever existed, even on your pages. What you can do is try to reach a consensus on the WikiProject pages. Gene Nygaard 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Caponer, I would agree with you that we should not just throw away the body of work; however, I voted for delete because I feel that it should be recreated under Wikiproject Olympics if the group of editors there decide it's a worthwhile project to undertake. There have been many decisions reached that I think are valid and strongly supported. However, there have been a few where discussion has either been stifled or forked into too many different directions. Sue Anne 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I believe the nominator, who entered into some of the discussions before his nomination to delete, is acting in bad faith because he did not get his way. People have put lots of work into this, myself included as a contributor, and it would be a waste to lose it completely. If this whole thing was started in the wrong place than surely there are other options short of deleting.--Kalsermar 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I have come across the nominator before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket where he engaged in an extremely abrasive arguments over something as unemotional as whether Pakistani and Bangladeshi cricketers should be ordered by last or first name, and I think it is happening again.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  Could you cite a policy source for your argument that an otherwise inappropriate article should be kept because the editor who proposed deleting it is abrasive? Monicasdude 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment : What I mean is that I am unconvinced about the good faith of Gene Nygaard's nomination, after what I have witnessed at h[1]. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree, even though I didn't read the above. I'm sure Gene is just trying to help, but even I have witnessed him swearing on public forums and being a real opinionated person, only thinking of his views and not the comments of others. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I mean no offense to you Gene, but I think your MfD was just out of spite. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but Move somewhere. This page is extremely important given the nature of the Olympic articles. There are so many different types of articles about the Olympics, and each one of those has at least something that is addressed on this Olympic Convention page that, if left out, would lead to a miscommunication that would make similar articles look entirely different. As far as the voting format, I feel that people have such varied input, that voting on it seems the only logical thing. I understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in order to get some standards here, I think that it is the only thing that makes sense.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that it is in the right place. I do think that it should be a sub-topic of the Olympic Wikiproject. Here in the Wikipedia namespace, it feels like it should be policy, but it really amounts to a set of votes. My vote is to merge or move this into the Olympics Wikiproject, if they'll have it. tiZom_(2¢) 04:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep but merge into the "correct" location. I don't completely understand the namespace issue, and the discussion between Gene Nygaard and Jared seems a bit petty, in my opinion. I do know this: much of the discussion on the Olympic conventions page was productive and useful, and it would be detrimental to the community of Olympic page editors if it was lost. I don't think that anybody involved in the Olympic conventions page had anything other than good intentions for improving the overall quality and consistency of Olympic pages. Simply deleting all that work would be a slap in the face to most of us. Andrwsc 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't doubt that most of the participants had good intentions; it is the process which is tainted. This page has only been there a couple of weeks; all the participants are likely still around and quite capable of participating in any discussions on the WikiProject page, with proper procedures and interpretations in accordance with general policy. No improperly closed discussions, for example, no improper claims of consensus when none exists, all the bad stuf that comes along with irregular pages like this, especially when they are deliberately et up to avoid the known-by-the=author-to-exist WikiProject (User:JP06035/Jared has self-identified himself as a participant[2] in the Wikiproject, four days before he stealthily created this separate page[3] without ever mentioning it there until I started quesitoning the legitimacy of his pages). Gene Nygaard 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : I disagree with the word "stealth". I asked a question about the 1500m issue at the WP talk, and the next day there was this Olympic conventions page set up, which I didn't set out to find, and I'm sure User:Punkmorten and User:Darius Dhlomo who are prolific olympic-related article editors were messaged about it despite not being specifically in WP:Olympics.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much proves my point, doesn't it—notifying non-participants in the WikiProject, while failing to notify the participants? Gene Nygaard 07:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment @Gene, if the conventions page is a "sham", "obscure", "unpublicized" and "stealthily created" to use your characterizations, then why did you not nominate this immediately after coming across it? You instead tried to participate on one issue, units, on which I've seen you get hotheaded on Pleiades (star cluster) as well regarding Kelvin(s), and then after not getting your way you nominate it for deletion using these very strong characterizations. With everything you say you reinforce my notion that you are acting in bad faith. That may make this deletion process valid but it also makes it petty. People with strong convictions do not participate in a tainted process first yet they fight it from the outset.--Kalsermar 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I can't speak for Gene, but as a) someone who was involved in the page within the first couple days of its creation and b) someone who has made thousands of edits to Olympics pages, I tried working within Jared's framework because overall I felt it was a good idea. But his heavy-handed way of dealing with the page caused me to take a huge step back. I was so busy actually working on Olympics pages, I decided to just wait to see what panned out. But, his nomination of the diplomas page for deletion and then his declaring that a 9/6/0/1 vote was "consensus", that if you missed the vote it was too bad for you, and his attempt to change the Manual of Style based on that slim majority was just too much and was why I voted to delete, but would also support a move into the WikiProject. Sue Anne 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kalsemar, how about this for starters:

• When I came across Jared's pages, I did not know that this was not a regularly formed project.
• When I came across them, I did not know Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics existed
• So obviously, I could not know that Jared (who knew about the WikiProject) was conducting these Shenanigans outside the structure of that WikiProject
• When I came across Jared's pages, I did not know that he would consistently and falsely claim Wikipedia:Consensus when none existed.
• When I first came across Jared's pages, it took me a while to figure out that he was improperly closing debates.
• I had to do the checking to through edit histories find out that he had never posted any notice about either the existence of his so-called forum, nor about any of the specific issues being voted on their, on the WikiProjects pages.
• Despite all that, the total elapsed time between my first edit on the talk page[4] and my nomination for deletion[5] was 2 days 21 hours 22 minutes.

• That includes some time for sleep, some other time away from Wikipedia, etc.
• That also includes time to find information about the deletion process for articles in Wikipedia: namespace.
• In my time on WikiPedia in that period, I also made a few hundred edits on other articles.

Gene Nygaard 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sue, you vote delete because you don't agree with the results and Jared's management (for which there is definitely room for improvement but that is not at issue here)? Otherwise you were prepared to let things pan out. If it was a good idea at first than it still is a good idea now that was mishandled which makes it insufficient grounds for deletion imho. I'm glad to see you would support a move though.

Gene, you, again, reinforced my believe you are acting in bad faith which disappoints me. You insult everyone who contributed to the conventions page by labelling it a "so called" forum. After only 2 days 21 hours and 22 minutes of not getting your way with one issue you nominate for deletion instead of trying to work through things and improve it. here you call the conventions page a "bastard child", "fraught with fraudulent votes" and a "hidden little hidden private domain". You should learn to control your language more and work with people instead of fighting out petty wars.--Kalsermar 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have mismanaged this debate, but its only 3 weeks old. There's no committee set up to arbitrate or decide when discussions would end, and I didn't really know how to do all that anyway when I started it. I believe now I (and other trustable Wikipedians) have skills enough to set up a nicely running forum with officials to help run it all. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as is per Jared's and Caponer's vote and explanation above. A lot of work has gone into this page, and deleting it would be wrong. Another option would be to move the page, but the discussions that have taken place already on the pages of the Olympic Conventions should mean that the page should stay where it is. - Nick C 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: hmm.. i think there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around in this discussion.. and a lot of unneccessary insults.. i think people just need to be nice. for me, i don't really see why there should be a page like this that is separate from the wikiproject.. isn't that what WikiProjects are for? the threat of deletion seems to be a response from various people to the unconventionally controlling way Jared is handling the discussion; perhaps when something is 'decided', he thinks it's a little more resolved than the rest of the wikipedia community does. a little difference like that has the potential to cause a lot of tension and arguments.. Mlm42 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, Mlm42. It is getting to the point now where Gene (and possibly myself) is taking this a tad too personally. We should all just stop fighting and take about the issue at hand: the deletion (or not deletion) of this article. I agree that this page should in some way be connected with the Wikiproject, but the information collected in 3 weeks should not go to waste. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - wow, do we all need a deep breath here. [6] was notification to members of the WikiProject of the existence of this page on 21 February. Jared has been more than a little controlling in regard to the conventions page, but there has been a great deal of excellent discussion there that should not be lost. The concept of a centralized place for discussion of conventions is a good one; it should be under the WikiProject Sports Olympics heading, however. It should also be noted that it is a discussion rather than a vote; that the Olympics pages are still subject to the Wikipedia MoS; and that consensus is not immutable. Everyone (yes, even Medalstats or whatever name he goes by nowadays) should be able to participate fully, at any point. -- Jonel | Speak 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment Your "notice" which you point us to, in its entirety, was "A discussion on conventions has been initiated at Wikipedia:Olympic conventions." with the link, of course. Discussion, no mention of voting at all let alone any particular topics being voted on, no claims that this is setting policy or that it is part of WikiProject Sports Olympics. No additional responses so far to help clarify it, either, that remains the entire section. Gene Nygaard 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - My notice was an attempt to alert members of the WikiProject, who I assume would be watching its talk page, of the existence of this page. A discussion is exactly what it was and, as far as I'm concerned, still is. If I'm convinced that there's consensus for something, I'll help implement it. If I'm convinced that something is a good idea, I'll help implement it. If I'm not convinced, I'm not going to do anything about it regardless of whether one specific editor claims a consensus. I do not think the conventions page can set policy, much less that it does. And I've already agreed with you that it should be part of the WikiProject. Also, if you want responses or clarification, it helps to ask a question (otherwise, I have no idea you would like a response or clarification). -- Jonel | Speak 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No, I don't think the page and its contents should be deleted. Its important to keep a record of the discussions that go on in terms of how a page is formed and the conventions used for it, however if it is felt that the page has become the personal domain of a clique - then it should be modified somewhat and incorporated into the broader discussion. Everyone should feel free to express their opinion without being felt put upon. jkm 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I like how you put that, jkm. While I dissagree with the clique thing, I think it should be possible put into the Wikiproject Olympics so that a more broad discussion can be made under a more broad spectrum of participants. Jared 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP --71Demon 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator AdamJacobMuller 02:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 17:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Incredibly strong keep - it is highly inappropriate to nominate this for deletion simply because you disagree with its findings. Andy Saunders 18:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments.

• Interpretation of results. I propose that the outcome of this vote be determined by the same criterion that User:JP06035/Jared uses in declaring consensus on the page nominated for deletion. See [7]
• In other words, if the vote ends up something like 12 delete, 11 keep, 4 move, and 1 abstain, that is a consensus for deletion.
• Make sense? It should to you, Jared, doesn't it? Gene Nygaard 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I understand now consensus means a great majority, not just one or two more votes. When I started that project, I never read WP:Consensus or whatever it is, so I didn't know how it works. The fact that I do know now, though, has nothing to do with this MfD; the consensus here will be made in accordance with the MfD rules, so there will probably be no consensus on this particular debate, seeing as how there is so much controversy. Nice try, though...I figured you'd say something sneaky like this sooner or later. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you going to do next Gene, put MfD on MfD?--Kalsermar 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• A notice put on the Miscellany for deletion project page indicates that it was activated 29 August 2005 as a legitimately created spinoff of the old Votes for Deletion page, after discussion and consensus there, as a part of renaming that page and covering the main namespace with it.[8]
• Can you show me anything similar with respect to Jared's page under discussion here and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics? Gene Nygaard 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Gene, check out this link--Kalsermar 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jared, for putting the lie to everything you just said here, with your reversion at [9]. Gene Nygaard 18:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want anything on the page changed until this MfD is over. It's unconventional to do that! You should know. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 19:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being so slow to figure out the rules:

1. Jared and Blnguyen are allowed to make corrections on the page,[10], since they voted "keep".

I guess that shouldn't be unexpected, when whatever rules exist are subject to the caprices of one editor.

Maybe a move to User: namespace rather than Wikipedia: namespace should be considered as a compromise solution. Gene Nygaard 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I outright told you that you are allowed to make sensible comments on the page, as long as you don't change what's there. So stop being such a baby! Gosh. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have the right to "outright" give anybody else instructions about which pages they can or can't edit. Read the deletion template, reflecting actual Wikipedia policy: "You are welcome to edit this page . . ." Monicasdude 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the way in which he is doing it is only reflecting his POV and it is not addressing any other. I told him he could edit the page if he wanted, as long as he kept the original text there, or in the same wording.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JP06035 (talk • contribs) 19:19, March 12, 2006.

You claimed it as the POV of the Wikipedia-educated and now-reformed Jared up above. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This describes itself as a forum. I thought wikipedia was not a soapbox? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The intro to this page was made before I knew a lot about Wikipedia policy; if I would have known, I would have wrote something different (I just changed it now). In reality, I didn't want to say "poll" or "debate" so I chose forum, which is obviously against WP:SOAP. It is really a discussion page, but for lack of a better word at that time, I chose forum. Thank you for alerting me of my fault. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.