Talk:Camp Minsi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confused

I am super confused as to how Wikipedia works. I don't understand how an article like Trexler Scout Reservation is not deleted when nominated but when this article was nominated it was. Minsi is just as notable, if not more so, than Trexler is. The Camp Minsi article cited sources, had non-POV information, was informative and what have you.

What makes the TSR article any different from the Camp Minsi article? They are on the same level. If one is kept for notability then they both should be kept - if one is deleted for lack of notability then they both should be deleted. Why the double standard for what can and can’t get an article here? MinsiPatches 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first you have to try and work with people. Your actions in nominating all those other pages was not appreciated and didn't make you a lot of friends. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, this isn't about me, or if people like me or not - this is about consistency on wikipedia. If their is a standard, then it should be applied fairly. Minsi was deleted for being non-notible. So I made those other nominations because these articles also did not appear to assert notability beyond being just a local scout camp. They all show as much noability as Minsi (or less), if Minsi wasn't notable enough to keep what makes these notable enough to keep? Nothing. That's why I nominated them -- not out of spite, or revenge, or any type of "sore loser"-ness - I was trying to fairly apply the decision applyed to Minsi. I wish people would try to assume good faith here. I am just trying to keep things fair and consistent. But if these other camps are notable (as their AfD's suggest) then Minsi should be considered notable and should not have been deleted. But it is deleted and is not restored so WTF? The article should be judged on its own merit and it should be treated fairly based on its content and subject. I'm not upset over the loss of the Minsi article - I just want things to be fair and balanced. Either Minsi is notable (and should be restored) or these other camps aren't (and should be deleted). How can you have it both ways? --MinsiPatches 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Minsi was deleted for the wrong reasons, and if you hadn't made an ass of yourself you may have had some support in getting it restored. Your continued bad faith edits aren't showing you to be anything but vindictive. --evrik ^(talk) 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• First, me being an "ass" (or whatever people's personal opinion of me is) should have nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia has an article covering Camp Minsi. An article's notability and individual merits for existing on Wikipedia should not be based on some people's opinion of a single unrelated individual web user who happens to like the subject. Second, my continued edits on other camps are not being made in "bad faith", I am genuinely trying to help. I am trying to elicit citations from people in order to help avoid becoming full of unsourced original research, or POV claims or unverifiable claims. The "citation needed" tag exists for a reason. All the claims I tagged as "citation needed" either need citations or should be removed from the articles per wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and original research. Third, if Camp Minsi was wrongly deleted, as you say, then it should be brought back - so why hasn't it? And why was it even deleted in the first place? Like I said before, I am super confused as to how Wikipedia works. MinsiPatches 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have news for you. People’s personal opinions of you do matter. Instead of referring to you as acting like an ass, perhaps I should have cited WP:Dick or WP:Point. It became quite clear when you tagged all those camp articles for deletion right after the deletion of Camp Minsi that you were upset. Your continued patter of editing shows that you are trying to make a point – and are being disruptive.

So then, though you may be technically right on issues of notability and facts, the fact the first thing you did was tag articles for deletion has made everyone else dealing with these pages eye you with suspicion, and it then become harder to assume good faith. So no matter what you say after that, it doesn’t matter.

Finally, when Camp Minsi was deleted, you should have posted a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting asking for help. You might have been able to secure enough support for the Scouting Community to bring it back on the deletion review page. Good luck on that one now. Wikipedia works by collaboration and cooperation, not by sticking your thumb in other peoples eyes. --evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I tagged all those camp articles for deletion right after the deletion of Camp Minsi not because I was upset. I tagged all those camp articles for deletion right after the deletion of Camp Minsi because those articles asserted as much notability as Minsi did. When Minsi was deemed not appropriate, and thus deleted, I assumed that other articles of the same level and nature should also be assessed and dealt with in order to carry out the decision uniformly and fairly. I was trying to help improve wikipedia here. It wasn't spite or anger, it was me trying to help Wikipedia and uniformly apply the ruling that was made. However now I learn (based on the discussions that arose from my nomiations) that the original ruling that was made was wrong and thus my following its precedent was wrong. I thought a decision had been made from Minsi's AfD that non-notable scout camps should go. So I was trying to help carry that out throughout on similar subject matter. Sorry for trying to help, sorry for following what I thought was wikipedia's procedures for assesing the merits of an article with niminating AfDs, and I'm sorry that it wasn't until after I tried to apply that inital ruling to other equal subjects that others spoke up and I was able to learn the inital ruling was wrong (so Minsi should be brought back).

I am trying to make a point on the other articles I've tag for "citations needed" -- my point is not to disrupt or be a pest. My point is they need to cite those facts or remove them because I (and others_ can't verrify them based on the info provided in the article and that is against wikipedia form and rules. This is not a place for original research. Although you might not like me, the claims I've tag do need to be cited and they should have those tags to flag them as such. Or those unverifable claims should be removed from this encylopedia. That's pretty simple.

I really don't care if Camp Minsi has an article on Wikipedia or not. What I do care about is that the ruling that was inflicted on Minsi is fairly and uniformly applied. Either restore Minsi (for it was wrongly deleted) or leave it deleted (but then delete the other camps as they are of the same level of notablility). Don't pick and choose what articles exist based on your personal opinion of one fan of the subject/article.

Your personal opinion of me and my actions on Wikipedia should not be held against whether or not Wikipedia has an article on Camp Minsi. I am not Camp Minsi I am just someone who thinks the article is as relevant and notable as any other camp here and should be treated equaly.

MinsiPatches 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• At this point, I don't think this conversation will progress any further. I you would like to continue it, I suggest you bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. --evrik ^(talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)