Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 15 May 2016

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2012. The result of the discussion was userfy.

Some suggest that the rules should be softened to "sometimes" or "usually." I rather think the original phrasing (least likely)used in the BLPN noticeboard in April 2011 is sufficiently accurate in tone to be utile. Obviously some people who are "right" will repeat the same points over and over in a discussion, and this "law" is intended only to suggest that doing so is most often done by people who are not in that position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This essay was based on editors who are highly focussed on a single topic, and who make arguments concerning that topic. I think some of the "additions" are actually unrelated to the concept of perseveration about an article topic, but may even be designed to "game the system" by defocussing the topic as stated. I consider a new title of WP:Perseveration on article topics to be reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Corollary

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Collect's "corollary" is simply wrong. Imagine a situation when some good quality scientific or scholarly review article exists on some subject, and this article dissects the issue in details. Other available sources are, e.g. numerous newspaper articles, which are superficial and inaccurate. Does it mean that the user who discovered the former source (which, according to our standards, is the best possible source), and who is insisting on usage of this particular source is wrong? In my opinion, the corollary may be used as a tool to fight against good sources, and, therefore, it should be deleted in any event. By the way, this discussion may serve as a demonstration that Collect's understanding of which sources are good and which are not is far from perfect, so he hardly is in position to teach us what good sources are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy

Collect's laws are a form of argumentum ad hominem. They ask us to conclude arguments are wrong due to the behavior of the person presenting them. We need to point this out in the essay. Also, what they describe are not examples of proof by assertion, which is the the repetition of propositions (i.e., statements of fact) not arguments. TFD (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Now contravenes MfD

CFCF please refer to the the notice at the top of the page. You have placed the material in mainspace in direct contravention of the result of the MfD whose result was userfy. It should be returned to user space under Collect’s chosen title “Pissing on essays one does not like”. Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am amused by your concerns here expressed. You should note your apparent animus towards me in the past on many occasions, and note that you were a urinal editor on the essay. is an "interesting edit". has Writegeist adding "and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's when they run to more than a couple of lines and thereby outstrip your limited comprehension skills." which seemed to be a rather pointy exercise. The MfD was years ago, and included "votes" from people who simply did not like it. I have now left their contributions in situ, so they ought well be happy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)