Talk:Oddopedia

I'm tempted to just delete this article. Not out of prejudice, just based on the "We Frown On Vanity" policy. Does anyone else agree or disagree? --Nerd42 23:12, 1 Arply 2010 (UTC)

How is this vanity —rms talk 23:33, 1 Arply 2010 (UTC)

cause it's about an irrelevant web site that nobody ever used --Nerd42 16:06, 2 Arply 2010 (UTC)

When did "we" start frowning on vanity? or did you write this years ago in those policy pages which:

1. Nobody Reads.
2. No Admin Cares About/Enforces.
3. You add to occasionally with new rules which also follow the above.

Seriously, this is a wiki, you can't just add your own rules when you feel like it, you have to discuss, digest, bitch about, and finally resolve policy changes, not just bark orders onto pages and tweek them so you can delete pages you don't like. --<css>

span.seppysig{

color:orange;
text-decoration:underline;
font-family:monospace;
font-size:14px;

}

span.seppysig:hover .visible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig .invisible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig:hover .invisible {

display:inline;

} </css>Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 16:11, 2 Arply 2010 (UTC)

Nerd: Oh, so I guess we should delete Shamrock Search Engine? This article isn't vanity. —rms talk 02:52, 3 Arply 2010 (UTC)

I think the "no vanity" rule applies more to cases where schoolkids write articles calling each other names. If it's about an obscure website I don't think it really counts as vanity...I see this artikle as absolutely harmless. --THE 03:40, 3 Arply 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I didn't write the vanity policy, just moved it to a different page when I reworked the site policy pages. If you guys think this isn't vanity, fine by me. Just thought I'd ask is all. --Nerd42 01:06, 6 Arply 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really vanity, but it sure does suck :P -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:29, 6 Arply 2010 (UTC)