In today's world,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination) represents a very important issue that impacts people's daily lives. Since its emergence,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination) has generated controversy and debate, arousing widespread interest in society. Over the years,
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination) has evolved and become a topic of study and research that covers various areas, from science and technology to politics and culture. In this article, we will explore in depth the importance and impact of
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination) in today's society, analyzing its influence on different aspects of daily life and offering a comprehensive view of this phenomenon that continues to generate interest and attention around the world.
- I just noticed the following string of edits from the nominator of this article:
- 11:02, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Bali ultimate (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Robofish (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 11:01, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Dlabtot (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section)
- 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Hiding (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 11:00, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:EEMIV (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Stifle (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Orangemike (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:59, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:OlYeller21 (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BryanG (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:58, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Doctorfluffy (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Gtstricky (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Cameron Scott (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:57, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Sceptre (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- 10:56, 8 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Pd THOR (→Chronology of Star Wars: new section) (top) rollback
- Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars, the above editors with the talk page messages were all those who said to "Delete" in that previous discussion. The nominator as of the time that I am typing this post has apparently not contacted User:Sf46, User:Jwray, User:Hobit, User:HJ Mitchell, User:DHowell, User:Cumbrowski, User:Dlohcierekim, User:Dream Focus, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Colonel Warden, User:jc37, User:Cube lurker, User:SoWhy, User:DGG, User:Firestorm, and User:JJL, i.e. the sixteen editors who said to "keep" in the previous discussion. My understanding per WP:CANVASS is that we must notify ALL participants of a previous discussion if we are going to do so and not just those who argued that way we agreed with last time. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have notified everyone from the previous discussion that had not already gotten notice from either another editor or a bot about this discussion. I'm not convinced inviting everyone from a previous discussion that failed to achieve consensus will make us any better off, but the circumstances left me little choice.--chaser (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. This kind of canvassing is severely discouraged. I only found out about this through the note on my talk page, and probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise; to avoid stacking the vote, those who argued to keep previously must be notified as well. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this !vote, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme. With a discussion this large, I don't think a single !vote will make any difference, but it is something of which the closing administrator should be aware.--chaser (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It shouldn't need to make a difference, what with almost all of the keeps being either policy-free rhetoric or boilerplate from editors who reject WP:N. The socking, SPAs and canvassing will probably lead to a no consensus close anyway, sadly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't we
try to start a fight, then? Because surely that will make the situation better.--chaser (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to "start a fight". FWIW I think your contribution to the AfD is one of the few comments for keeping worth listening to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)