Difference between revisions of "Talk:SeOCC"

Revision as of 23:24, 11 November 2004

Sorry for adding "F***ian" language. :( ~User:Syskeyia

Deletion requested

• User:Pudding requested Speedy Deletion with the comment, "SeOCC wants this deleted so keep it deleted."
• User:195.92.168.163 reverted the page with the comment, "(Screw what SeOCC wants.)"

Delete

1. Delete. Unless someone's added content to SeOCC's page that isn't SeOCC himself, the page is entirely, as far as I can tell, his own intellectual property, and should be removed if he so requests it. If someone wants a SeOCC page they can provide an outside perspective of their own. --Galdago
2. Delete everyone should have final say in whether their nation has a page here. i don't want any part of this project and i should not be forced to de facto participate by having a page about my nation maintained here. whether you find it significant or informant is immaterial if the player behind the nation doesn't want it here. Pudding 19:05, 11 Nov 2004 (GMT)
3. Delete. SeOCC's right to have his work featured here or not should be respected. He has expressed his wish not to have anything to do with this project, he doesn't really have much to do with the vast majority of nationstates anyway, and he shouldn't have to participate if he doesn't want to. Xikuang
4. Delete. Intellectual property of this page belongs to SeOCC, as he wrote it entirely. And so, it should be deleted if he wants it so. It's a pity, surely, as it is a very informative page. But its SeOCC's right as its writer to have it removed if he wants. Anyone can give an outsider perspective if SeOCC's inclusion is 'needed' in this wiki. Hell Bovines
5. Delete. Allow me to ammend by vote by saying that I do think we need a page about SeOCC - obviously, the pages of many other people link to it - but we should not force SeOCC's player to keep his work here against his will. I think we should remove the current content and replace it with a generic info box page with no more information that anyone who has seen SeOCC's NS page would know. That said, let me remind Pudding that you catch way more flies with honey than with vinegar. Iansisle 02:57, 12 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Keep

1. Keep. This article does not fit the Speedy Deletion criteria and SeOCC is definitely a notable nation. --Goobergunch|? 18:10, 6 Nov 2004 (GMT)
2. Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Besides, it gives a lot of background to SeOCC that I didn't know about. Personally, I think it is very interesting and the only thing I'd change would be to give SeOCC a flag. :) ~Syskeyia

Neutral / No opinion

1. This deletion request was not handled properly, but the request deserves to be discussed. I have no opinion on the value of this page. → Fris Θtalk 15:36, 4 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Comments

1. I don't believe this meets the standard for speedy deletion, yet obviously the page originator wants it deleted, thus this poll. → Fris Θtalk 15:36, 4 Nov 2004 (GMT)
2. what the fuck is the hold up? i want this deleted, so respect my wishes and delete it. now.
3. Assuming this last rude comment is from User:Pudding, let me point out that you lost "ownership" of this page the second you clicked 'Save page'. This is a historic record of NationStates, not a personal website. No single user controls any given page, rather consensus is the rule. Right now consensus is leaning towards Keep. Your "demands" are not helping your case. → Fris Θtalk 17:32, 11 Nov 2004 (GMT)
4. Let me point out that the material is his own. Unless you wish to provide an outsider's perspective on SeOCC and post the page yourself, he should be able to remove the content if it's his desire. He put it there in the first place. --Galdago
5. Comment on Iansisle's comments: there is no point in having a cut-and-paste page for SeOCC or any nation. As Goober stated, SeOCC is a noteable nation, and any page created would have material that SeOCC probably wouldn't like. I'm not interested in going through this kind of a user-vandalism session with Pudding and friends every time somebody posts something remotely non-NPOV on a third-party SeOCC page. Like it or not, this is a test case re: ownership of content. Using Wikipedia standards, this is vandalism. Since NSwiki has a different purpose, we may have to redefine what counts as vandalism on nation pages. Ownership is a tricky question in a shared roleplay environment, and I'm not in as big a hurry to close this out based on emotional appeals. Let's get some more opinions before we make a hasty, precedent-setting decision. → Fris Θtalk 03:24, 12 Nov 2004 (GMT)