AKFD articles - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

AKFD articles

Re: [WikiEN-l] Recruits?

RE: [WikiEN-l] Michael

Stevertigo

15 Mar 2003 15 Mar '03

3:19 a.m.

Aids Kills Fags Dead article.... Why are these still here? Someone, anyone delete them now, please. I thought these were dealt with long ago, and *someone, a reputable source of math, keeps trying to revitalize the article, for *some "reason." Its been up for a delete vote for two weeks now. Someone take care of it. Thank you. SV

Reply

Show replies by date

Axel Boldt

15 Mar 15 Mar

6:13 p.m.

--- Stevertigo <stevertigo(a)attbi.com> wrote:

Aids Kills Fags Dead article.... Why are these still here? Someone, anyone delete them now, please. I thought these were dealt with long ago, and *someone, a reputable source of math, keeps trying to revitalize the article, for *some "reason." Its been up for a delete vote for two weeks now. Someone take care of it. Thank you. SV

1. Discussions are easier to follow if you use people's names. 2. There is no need to use scare quotes when referring to my reasons, as I have stated them repeatedly here and on the talk pages. In short: article titles should precisely describe article contents. 3. The claim that the page "has been up for a delete vote for two weeks now" is incorrect. The article was added to that list on February 24 by Infrogmation, later changed to a removal request for [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]], and that request was removed from the list on March 5 by Maverick149. I readded the page [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] on March 15 to [[Votes for deletion]], as I now think the title is in bad taste: it shows up when people search for "AIDS" and does not make clear that the article discusses the slogan rather than the thesis. That's also why I had moved the material a while ago to [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]]. The issue was originally brought to this mailing list by Zoe and Jtdirl (aka James Duffy aka ST�D/��RE), and Jimbo approved the article under [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]] in http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-March/001458.html One day later, you created a stubby [[Anti-gay slogans]] and moved the material there, the only justification being your edit summary "(Removed text.. this just doesnt belong here.... sorry Homophobes....)" I moved the material back on March 13, and Jtdirl promptly reverted, with edit summary "(We already decided this issue at least 3 times. Why does Axel keep coming back and trying to undo what has been agreed? reverting)". I'm sick of these constant distortions and waste of my time. More details at [[Talk:Anti-gay slogan]]. Axel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Reply

Stevertigo

6:30 p.m.

Axel: I'm sick of these constant distortions and waste of my time.

Well, your communication was eagerly anticipated. I apologise for making it somewhat personal; It was my point to illustrate in a direct way how this would be condemned as a title, if it were about almost any other 'ethnic' group. I also apologise for not having read all of the discourse in the matter; there was far too much of it in my opinion, and I wrote the email yesterday, in haste, after seeing the article re-animated, when it should have been buried "in poor taste" weeks ago. I agree with Jim's comments that the material itself merits discourse, but it be done under a legitimate and general title. I thought we all agreed to all of this on the talk. By reanimating the title, you seemed to be saying one thing and doing another. Furthermore, out of sensitivity to anti-homosexuals, I was hesitant to rename it 'anti-gay' slogan, because people opposed to homosexuality don't see homosexuality as 'gayness', nor do they view their opposition to the gay lifestyle as 'phobic.' And I greatly appreciate your attempts at reconciling this issue. I simply think that because it was your energy, along with Cunc's that seemed to oppose a loud and reasoned consensus, you perhaps wasted your own time in coming to a natural compromise. -SV

Reply

Axel Boldt

6:59 p.m.

--- Stevertigo <stevertigo(a)attbi.com> wrote:

I also apologise for not having read all of the discourse in the matter; there was far too much of it in my opinion,

Fair enough. You are then of course in no position to claim "I thought we all agreed to all of this on the talk" and write about "a loud and reasoned consensus", which never existed.

I agree with Jim's comments that the material itself merits discourse, but it be done under a legitimate and general title.

The second half-phrase is your opinion, and was not included in Jim's comments. http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-March/001458.html Axel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Reply

7732

days inactive

7732

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

3 comments

2 participants

tags (0)

participants (2)

Axel Boldt
Stevertigo