Talk:Greenfinger
Latest comment: 8 years ago by BethNaught in topic Protected edit request January 2016
green fingers edit
I have created the article green fingers (against my better judgement as this is definitely not a common search term). As discussed in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). This is likely to be what is being searched for. I propose that this be changed to a redirect to green fingers along with green finger. Polargeo (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing as nobody has replied can somebody please change this redirect to point to green fingers Polargeo (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. ÷seresin 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
greenfinger is NOTHING to do with green fingers Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but A) It was clearly established at the AfD that this was likely to be the search term people were looking for. B) A redirect to a protologism such as Greenfinger will be RfD'd and deleted as completely unnecessary (I will take it to RfD). So I think the conclusion is fine use the neologism/protologism in the geoengineering article but a separate article is unjustified at present as backed up by everyone, except you, at the AfD and a redirect to Greenfinger is also unnecessary. I for one was very very uncomfortable that the artilce was being used to cast individuals in a criminal light when if you did the research on the particular individual you would have seen that they were dominantly a science fiction writer who had been badly misrepresented by a gutter journalist. Repeating this sort of trash on wikipedia as part of an environmentalist propaganda campaign downgrades the project. Polargeo (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not level such poorly researched accusations at me. I emailed the person concerned, who's a prominent Geoengineering advocate, and he was fine about it. At the very least, you should refer to both terms. Greenfinger is not going away, it's entered general use, and there will be an article about it in due course. King Canute is a case study relevant in this instance. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which individual did you email I would be interested? Also just because Greenfinger has been used it may remain in use, it may not. However, it is still very definitely a neologism and is likely to remain so for some time. Therefore not a justification for a separate article or even a redirect. You were redefining it here beyond what it is and that is not the purpose of wikipedia. To drive the use of words or phrases beyond what they have been used for outside of wikipedia is not useful. Otherwise wikipedia could become a forum for every nutcase to promote their own agenda by creating articles on what they think these phrases mean, this is a clasic case of WP:Synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not level such poorly researched accusations at me. I emailed the person concerned, who's a prominent Geoengineering advocate, and he was fine about it. At the very least, you should refer to both terms. Greenfinger is not going away, it's entered general use, and there will be an article about it in due course. King Canute is a case study relevant in this instance. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but A) It was clearly established at the AfD that this was likely to be the search term people were looking for. B) A redirect to a protologism such as Greenfinger will be RfD'd and deleted as completely unnecessary (I will take it to RfD). So I think the conclusion is fine use the neologism/protologism in the geoengineering article but a separate article is unjustified at present as backed up by everyone, except you, at the AfD and a redirect to Greenfinger is also unnecessary. I for one was very very uncomfortable that the artilce was being used to cast individuals in a criminal light when if you did the research on the particular individual you would have seen that they were dominantly a science fiction writer who had been badly misrepresented by a gutter journalist. Repeating this sort of trash on wikipedia as part of an environmentalist propaganda campaign downgrades the project. Polargeo (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Protected edit request January 2016 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add some form of {{pp}} or a related template to the top of the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Done BethNaught (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
