| Revision as of 11:58, 8 December 2006 editMbelisle (talk | contribs)168 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:04, 8 December 2006 edit undoMbelisle (talk | contribs)168 edits →NoteNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :I don't agree that the article should be censored from existence as a way to address the sources issue. Although I just walked in here and saw the bullet holes in the wall and shells dusting the floor, the group is mentioned on the ] and they are well-known (but generally despised) on Slashdot, so I would think the existence of an article (even though sourcing may be a challenge) is more fair than saying, ”No, Misplaced Pages does not like the GNAA you will not get info about them here.” | :I don't agree that the article should be censored from existence as a way to address the sources issue. Although I just walked in here and saw the bullet holes in the wall and shells dusting the floor, the group is mentioned on the ] and they are well-known (but generally despised) on Slashdot, so I would think the existence of an article (even though sourcing may be a challenge) is more fair than saying, ”No, Misplaced Pages does not like the GNAA you will not get info about them here.” | ||
| : |
:The speedy deletion (of an an article that wasn't nominated for speedy deletion) without consensus and subsequent protection looks like a unilateral effort of someone with an ax to grind. Even if it isn't verifiable, the policy still requires a five-day discussion. ] 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 8 December 2006
Note
If anyone has any reliable sources to bring to light on this issue, please do so, this page is now sprotected. Open discussion is not a bad thing (it's a good thing), just try to avoid making this into a revert war page (that doesn't work) -- Tawker 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the article should be censored from existence as a way to address the sources issue. Although I just walked in here and saw the bullet holes in the wall and shells dusting the floor, the group is mentioned on the list of notable troll organizations and they are well-known (but generally despised) on Slashdot, so I would think the existence of an article (even though sourcing may be a challenge) is more fair than saying, ”No, Misplaced Pages does not like the GNAA you will not get info about them here.”
- The speedy deletion (of an an article that wasn't nominated for speedy deletion) without consensus and subsequent protection looks like a unilateral effort of someone with an ax to grind. Even if it isn't verifiable, the policy still requires a five-day discussion. Mbelisle 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)