Commodore Remix

Does anyone have the wiki markup for the page? I could stick it up on exotica (so at least it's somewhere!)

oh wait. it's back.. or i was looking at the wrong page. oops. [edit] i was looking at the talk page. well i hope the article doesn't get removed.

Finally some sense from Daniel5ko who makes it clear that every band does not need to be U2 in order to be included on Wikipedia.

Interesting to see the talk pages of some of the main players there, and the warnings issued to them and arguments entered into.

> Delete No notable coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slatersteven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... her_Connor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andyjsmith

Andy was warned on 22nd July that he should review the criteria for speedy deletion.

Hello Andyjsmith, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Transformice to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.

Well, i see the endresult of this all was deletion after all... RIP, PPOT Wiki-page

The most disturbing part about it is that the guy who made the final decision doesn't seem to have read any of the arguments. It was all a policy/rule dropping contest, that was the only thing that mattered, no matter how loose the grounds.

Is there any way to refer this to a "higher authority" for a second opinion?

In any case, I am glad this episode has opened my eyes about the absurdity that is Wikipedia.

The result was delete. there are a lot of keep votes from new or inexperienced accounts that have failed to refute policy based delete votes that argue that what coverage exists is not substantial.

But I thought that it wasn't a vote, but a decision made by an independent admin? The independent admin should make up his own mind whether the coverage is substantial. Or am I getting something wrong here?

Makke wrote:The most disturbing part about it is that the guy who made the final decision doesn't seem to have read any of the arguments. It was all a policy/rule dropping contest, that was the only thing that mattered, no matter how loose the grounds.

Reminds me a bit of the Timbaland case in Finland where the judge didn't rule on the content of the arguments, just came to a summary conclusion thus: "there was an argument, therefore I dismiss the case".

I fear an oncoming holocaust for wikipedia pages related to C64 music.

Chris

Thunderer wrote:Is there any way to refer this to a "higher authority" for a second opinion?

In any case, I am glad this episode has opened my eyes about the absurdity that is Wikipedia.

The result was delete. there are a lot of keep votes from new or inexperienced accounts that have failed to refute policy based delete votes that argue that what coverage exists is not substantial.

But I thought that it wasn't a vote, but a decision made by an independent admin? The independent admin should make up his own mind whether the coverage is substantial. Or am I getting something wrong here?

You're right: I was led to believe the admin should have made up his mind based on the article, not the discussion. As such, it's a travesty, but one you'd expect given how the situation has developed. Nothing has been fair so far, so why should this be?

This discussion also indicates that the only opinion that matters in Wikipedia are apparently Wikipedia editors. So validity_of_opinion is proportional to (length_of_membership x number_of_deletes) without taking any account of (subject_expertise) or (ability_to_parse_evidence).

The whole thing summed up: "not enough Wikpedia editors showed up to defend PPOT, therefore they're gone". The argument about the references being trash is itself trash: National TV stations, Nationally Published Magazines, Newspapers, etc, are credible for anyone who isn't personally vested in dismissing them.

This was simply a vendetta and abuse of power driven by the personal biases of one editor not qualified to judge anything about the scene, who then hypocritically canvassed his mates in a cynical attempt at revenge (which you can see from the matey tone in the talk pages).

This is actually very similar to how people were persecuted in Soviet Russia: in that much of the persecution wasn't done by the central Government, but by local bureaucrats with scores to settle who were determined to use their lack of accountability and whatever rules they had at their disposal to use the central authorities to punish or remove someone from existence. That government started off as a people's republic too.

Chris

Is it safe to post my "But how do you kill that which has no life" find now???

Just so the page lives on..

http://www.exotica.org.uk/wiki/PRESS_PLAY_ON_TAPE

we are not quite as important as wikipedia perhaps but still! its a reference for the information. Please feel free to improve add pics etc.

Thanks for that.

It seems that a smaller discussion is going on here too: http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_p ... _id=193696

HELP!

After months of no one messing with my Dunjonquest page, suddenly the guy who took on PPOT seems to have come after my entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 8series%29

Think it's payback for my 2 cents on PPOT? I think so. Hey, at least it's not "speedy deletion"?

If anyone is better than I am at adding references, please add some and shut down this talk of deleting an article on an important part of gaming history. considering the Dunjonquest series launched the popularity of Epyx!

I'm afraid it's hopeless until a wikipedia reform will stop this "Deletionist" madness. Their system is apparently corrupted, the dream of a free wiki-based encyclopedia replaced by a monster buerocracy. To quote again SchuminWeb, who pointed out with a smirk:

SchuminWeb wrote: Lovely... I'm amused about how much they lack a clue on how this system works.

This one sentence speaks for itself and shows what kind of arrogant, self-righteous people are running the show now.

The following sentence indicates that your Dunjonquest article has fallen victim to their vendetta:

SchuminWeb wrote: And points discussed there noted in case they ever come up in the Press Play on Tape AFD, or the recently-nominated Dunjonquest AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)"

So before anyone should waste their time by supporting the Wikipedia, it would be more reasonable to spend it on another project, or maybe on rallying the media or the Wikimedia Foundation, show them that something's amiss and needs their intervention. If that's how "their system works" anyway.

But that building Fraser Mansion has notability! Oh, the notability, SchuminWeb knows what's best: Random old building used for Scientology > PRESS PLAY ON TAPE.