Talk:SitNGo Wizard

Please unprotect

Please allow anyone to edit this article while consensus is determined whether to delete it. This way, anyone can add references Samboy (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The protection will expire on 22 January, but the AfD won't close until 25 January. Consider adding your proposed new references to the article talk page in the meanwhile. (For a hotly-disputed article, it is surprising how little discussion has occurred on this talk page). If the edit war restarts, it will make the AfD even more difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger COI and Edit-Warring

TonyTheTiger will not allow changes to be made to this article. Multiple editors have told him to disengage as he was compensated to create the article. He continues to revert good faith edits to the article making it appear like an advertisement. He should completely disengage from editing it. —DegenFarang (via posting script) 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Specifically my last edit should stand. I know however that TonyTheTiger will simply keep reverting my edit and have no issue partaking in an edit war (again) over this article - so I invite other editors to point out to him that A) he has a COI and should not be editing this article at all and B) my last edit improves the article and makes it read like less of an advertisement. DegenFarang (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not considered helpful to remove a proper infobox or inliine citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not considered helpful to assume you are right and repeatedly revert other editors' edits on an article you were paid to write and should not be editing at all. DegenFarang (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly recommend that neither DegenFarang nor TonyTheTiger should make further edits to the article until the AfD closes, unless you find at least one person here on the Talk page who supports your change. Due to the recent 3RR case, anyone who continues the war, without first getting support on the Talk page, risks an immediate block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Can you make a ruling or give your opinion about which version should be the one to 'stand' until the AfD is done? The current version is one TonyTheTiger reverted from another editor - not from me. I am just trying to preserve the other editors change. So that editor at least, is giving tacit approval of my change. DegenFarang (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is "at least one person" the standard? It would seem like consensus would be more appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK then, you should get consensus first. And, if you are planning a large change, post a note in the AfD as to what you want to do, so the data needed by the AfD voters won't be lost to view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not planning to do anything because I know TonyTheTiger will just instantly change it back, ignoring all warnings and advice from others to cease partaking in an edit war and to disengage from editing this article at all. This situation really pisses me off as an editor. My hands are tied. If I change the article he just changes it back and then I change it back and then he goes and reports me and I get blocked. What is wrong with this picture. He is spamming Wikipedia and I can't do anything about it. DegenFarang (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia Project Poker

Seeking outside opinions from Wikipedia project poker about whether TonyTheTigers constant reverts of other editors' changes to this article should stand. I do not wish to engage in an edit war but TonyTheTiger is ignoring multiple warnings from multiple administrators and editors to disengage from editing this article due to the AfD in progress and his COI. DegenFarang (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your point. Do you actually believe that you are improving an article by removing infoboxes and inline citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that [this] version is a lot better than [this] one. I would like opinions from other editors and for other editors to revert your edits if they see it as appropriate. My point is that you are ignoring all warnings and advice given to you on this article and I do not wish to be drawn into an edit war - so I am seeking the opinions of other editors. DegenFarang (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe what you are saying? I don't believe you do? There are not too many people on wikipedia who oppose infoboxes and inline citations, but maybe you do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are far oversimplifying your edits as anybody who clicks the links above can see. I oppose the wording, peacock statements, advertising and content that you added - not the way in which you added it (via infoboxes and inline citations). Advertising in an infobox or using an inline citation is still advertising. DegenFarang (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think you are fooling claiming that there is peacocking and advertising in the infobox?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing this with you. It is obvious you are going to fight any changes to this article - I am seeking other opinions. DegenFarang (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Added to Project Gambling, Project Computing and Project Software

In a further effort to prevent an edit war from occurring on this article I have added a request for assistance from other editors to the above three projects in addition to Project Poker. I would like a consensus to be reached on which version of the article should stand until the AfD is complete. DegenFarang (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)