| Revision as of 19:20, 11 June 2005 editUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits restored links, per Falphin← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:36, 11 June 2005 edit undoFalphin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,599 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :] has called the AARM site "relevant to CARM" in an edit summary elsewhere. If it was founded in reaction to CARM and has a similar mission, and if it has additional informaiton that would be of use to readers, then it should be included. Being "notable" has noting to do with it. And the wishes of CARM have nothing to do with it either. How do we know their wishes anyway? Cheers, -] 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) | :] has called the AARM site "relevant to CARM" in an edit summary elsewhere. If it was founded in reaction to CARM and has a similar mission, and if it has additional informaiton that would be of use to readers, then it should be included. Being "notable" has noting to do with it. And the wishes of CARM have nothing to do with it either. How do we know their wishes anyway? Cheers, -] 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :: I see, the biggest problem is not that the links are parody but they include offensive material against Carm. Thats why it was such a big deal their. I won't revert instead I will wait for you answer. ] 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:36, 11 June 2005
I removed the atheist links because of 1.non-notable 2. Request from CARM. Falphin 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. CARM is directly responsible for the offshoot that became AARM, so it is notable. Mdavidn 17:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have after reviewing the site. In response I will argue that it is not CARMS fault for AARM. The cause was atheists that disagreed with CARMS policies. So the cause is the atheists not CARM. Therfore it is not notable and it is not wikipedias responsibility to make something notable. Falphin 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still disagree. The reasons for AARM's creation are somewhat complex, and I do not wish to be drawn into that discussion. However, it should be noted that these "atheists" were happy at the CARM forums for many years before the sudden formation of AARM, so I do not see how it could be argued that they are exclusively to blame. It should also be noted that the participants at AARM are not all atheist. I still believe the link is notable. Mdavidn 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand I doubt a full agreement can be made on the topic. But I do want to thank you for paying attention to the article. Falphin 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User:Falphin has called the AARM site "relevant to CARM" in an edit summary elsewhere. If it was founded in reaction to CARM and has a similar mission, and if it has additional informaiton that would be of use to readers, then it should be included. Being "notable" has noting to do with it. And the wishes of CARM have nothing to do with it either. How do we know their wishes anyway? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I see, the biggest problem is not that the links are parody but they include offensive material against Carm. Thats why it was such a big deal their. I won't revert instead I will wait for you answer. Falphin 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)