Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerilla Poetics Project

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, despite the flamewar. --Coredesat 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Poetics Project

edit

Of the 39 unique google hits, none seem to be reliable sources. No evidence presented of significance or multiple (or indeed any) non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They are certainly interesting, but really do not seem notable. --tjstrf 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete importance tag was removed without any sign of notability being given within the article. Non-notable group. IrishGuy talk 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established.--Jersey Devil 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are a burgeoning poetic movement, soon to be as important as any that ever existed. I'm not sure how something can become "notable", but we've already covered a large area of North America, Australia and Europe with these broadsides. That's pretty dang notable. We are a real entity, a revolution in publishing and poetry, and since we are "underground" and do this under the cloak of subversiveness, we will not have any "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources". At least not yet. Delete us if you want. that's fine. but, we will be back. And, when you venture to your local bookstore (assuming you read books) and find one of our broadsides, will we then be legitimized? will we then be notable? -- The GPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.187.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Fear not, we have no intention of deleting you. The Wikipedia article, however, may be deleted. Theoretically you should have no association with your article anyway, so no confusion should arise. Melchoir 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 39 unique google hits, none seem to be reliable sources. No evidence presented of significance or multiple (or indeed any) non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources - The coverage seems trivial at this point because the group is newly formed. Interest has been intense though despite the newness of the project, and knowing how internet-based real world activities such as these tend to spread virally, increasing coverage would seem to be inevitable. If outside validation is the measure of notability, this will be something that qualifies very soon.--Smog.net 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage seems trivial at this point because the group is newly formed. The coverage doesn't seem to be trivial, it is trivial. As for the group being newly formed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the group ceases to be new and non-notable, it doesn't deserve an article. One can always be written if they do become a notable group. It isn't personal. I'm sure what the group does is very helpful to unpublished poets but thus far they just aren't notable. IrishGuy talk 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. To clarify though, these are not unpublished poets. Some have been working (and published) for over 20 years. But I understand the argument for deletion at this time. --Smog.net 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Crystal Ball..."- with all due respect, we don't need to 'predict' the future, because in two months the GPP's membership of published, highly respected writers, poets, authors and publishers has grown from ten members to seventy. this is explosive exponential growth that cannot be denied, and is in itself, 'notable.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.182.141 (talk • contribs)
Seventy members does not notability make. IrishGuy talk 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, but the time frame involved suggests a high probability of further exponential growth. that's notable, no matter what you THINK. this is purely subjective reasoning on your part Irishguy, and suggests you lack any sort of thinking apart from stubborn personal objections. but you are certainly entitled to it, and when the <snark>Wikiality of the project becomes culturally 'cromulent' we will be back</snark>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.182.141 (talk • contribs)
No, this isn't simply my opinion. In point of fact, there are hard and fast guidelines for notability and verifiability...and this subject meets none. Please read the guidelines on civility and personal attacks before making rude assumptions about my mental capacity. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • got it. I apologize. but seriously, ...wikiality, eh? when there are enough of us, etc. thanks for the straightening out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.182.141 (talk • contribs)

screw it. delete it. we (the GPP) need Wikipedia like polar bears need sweaters. as for Melchoir setting me straight on the whole article vs. self identity crisis, thanks bro. you must forgive me as us artistic types get so confused sometimes. i once wrote a poem about a bird i saw and i swear, for three weeks, i identified myself with that bird. i WAS that bird. i know NOW, that i am not this article, and that it is the article and NOT i that will be deleted. you don't know how relieved i am. infinite thanks. on a related note, does the sarcasm meet the civility code? if not, does Melchoir's smug jab? just a clarification on whether smugness and/or sarcasm is tolerated or not. if so, on either count, i'll definitely be back.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.187.254 (talk • contribs)

Melchoir didn't make any smug jab. Melchoir responded to your phrasing Delete us if you want. As you specified us in the personal sense, Melchoir was, I believe, letting you know that this AfD isn't personal. And no, your rude sarcasm isn't even remotely civil...but I assume you knew that. I have to say, the attitude of the people defending this article aren't doing it, or the organization, any favors. IrishGuy talk 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:LitLives

I'd argue against the deletion of this article. The group consists of a number of notable and prolific underground poets from Luis Berriozabal, Miles J Bell, christopher cunningham and others who are published widely on the net and in the small presses. Google the names of the members and you'll get a lot more than 39 hits. I'd also argue that Google isn't a good standard to judge whether a movement is 'notable.' A large number of poets are not internet savvy. Particularly because underground literature, which is a growing movement, works in direct opposition to traditional mainstream methods, you aren't going to find a lot of media coverage in the easy to find places like Google or newspapers. Is Wikipedia just a mirror of what Google thinks is important? God help us if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.195.166 (talk • contribs)


I just checked the site and many members are notable in the small press poetry world. Some of the publishers involved have books exibited in the Museum of Modern Art and the Getty. Some of the poets are very widely read and published by some big New York poublishing houses. Look at the site and google the names. I say to let them stay. We don't want the deletion of them to be a footnote in the future. Just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.17.74 (talk • contribs)


brother, if that sarcasm was rude, and NOT civil, then we're in a world of hurt as a society. as for the smug jab; it was both, but I assume you knew that. the use of the word "theoretically" is sarcastic (and rude) and just as smug as anything i said...but I assume you knew that (again). LitLives is right. Gold help us. as for us not doing the organization any favors, what does that mean? hmmm.... there's no arguing against the deletion of this article with smug, sarcastic, rude people who don't even know (or acknowledge) when they are being smug, sarcastic and rude. theoretically, they should know the difference. delete it, already. DELETE IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.187.254 (talk • contribs)


  • Are these impassioned requests from GPP to DELETE the article some sort of guerilla reverse psychology? Ha. By all means, keep wikipedia PURE. It's such a fount of reliable information about everything else. Keep telling yourself that until you believe it.--Smog.net 23:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These requests are due to the organization sending people here from their blog and their MySpace account. The article just isn't verifiably notable...insulting Wikipedia and/or other editors won't change that fact. IrishGuy talk 00:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's so much fun to insult wikipedia! It's easy to pick apart, because at its core it's just a bunch of geeks in an old-fashioned usenet-style argument wankfest. Nothing important is being done here, unless you consider disinformation important. I do in many ways, so what wikipedia has become is amusing to me, but no one should take the entries here seriously. Anyone could go poke around for five minutes and find a dozen inaccuracies, but we all know that.
What's funny about the wikipedia cult's benchmark for what is "notable" is that the thing itself is only marginally notable. I know that many of you believe that you are doing Good Work, but you are delusional. You aren't editors - that's an insult to real editors - you have simply memorized a lot of someone else's rules, and you use your access to a computer to make sure a bunch of other people follow them. This is an anthill, and you are worker ants. When you drop dead the other ants will just eat you and continue marching.
But I'm glad (really) that you have found something that gives your life some kind of purpose. If it keeps you from shooting up your high school, or starting a hip hop group, I'm all for it. --Smog.net 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, insulting Wikipedia and the editors. Always a good move when attempting to save your article. IrishGuy talk 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go calling yourself an editor again. I do have a serious question for you though; do you have to have your sense of humor surgically removed to rise in the ranks here, or do they just choose people who aren't afflicted by such things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smog.net (talk • contribs)
Do you mistake rudeness for wit? IrishGuy talk 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question was, were you humorless before you came here, or did pissing your life away here cause you to become humorless? You consistently answer questions with questions, which is rather cultish behavior. Deflect and attack. Please answer the question. I have a burning need to know more about you, as you seem to fancy yourself an authority on everything, yet at the same time are a sort of robot-like creature, and I find that absolutely fascinating. -- love, Smog.net 02:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any my question was: do you mistake rudeness for wit? At no point have I said, or even alluded to, my being an authority on everything. Nor am I humorless...you just aren't funny. There is a difference. It may be subtle, but it's there. You are simply rude. Rude and funny aren't the same thing. IrishGuy talk 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean rude and funny aren't the same thing to you. And that illustrates the fatal flaw of wikipedia. You hide behind the lie of neutrality, yet the prejudices and ignorance of the most active members is on display everywhere you look. -- Love, Smog.net 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I thought that they were not an "organization"? Confusing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.17.74 (talk • contribs)

Nothing confusing about it at all....considering nobody in the AfD has made the claim that they aren't an organization. Merely that they aren't a notable organization. IrishGuy talk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attempting to "save our article". We have asked you to remove it. Without your website we will still be here CREATING more that ones and zeros. You may not like "Attilla the Hun", but you have an entry on him... You won't like us, either, but what YOU like won't matter much. We will be back when you cannot deny that we are here. THREATENING to remove an "article" from YOUR website is the threat that you have been using a lot here. GO ahead. What are you waiting for? We are certainly much more notable that the two bit "magicians" that you are writing about. 141.151.17.74 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is attempting to save this article? Really? Not here? Or here? Or even here? You know...all those places where you ask people to come here and defend your organization. I never said I didn't like the organization or what the organization does...although the more contact I have with the more self-important members, the less I am attracted to the organization...I did, however, note that they aren't notable. IrishGuy talk 01:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Irish Guy, With all respect, What you like and don't like does not matter. We do not need your support and would not welcome you into the group. We are CREATORS, not DESTROYERS. It seems that your big issue is proving that others are not "legitimate" while subverting the very same Encyclopaedia by changing history to show that Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Why, because YOU hate the British. That is territory for a blog, but a serious encyclopaedia. Can the information in this encyclopaedia be trusted as accurate? Well, that all depends on what "editor" changed it last to show his point of view is notw accurate. Not really an encyclopaedia in the real sense of the word. Also, the blog was posted when we were attempting to save the "article". We leave it there for our MANY, MANY members to see as an example of why we are doing this. Also, it will be nice when Wikipaedia cannot ignore the movement and they are forced to recognise it. It is kept up as history. We are a serious movement and are notable regardless of what "editors" at Wikipaedia can understand or not. Deletion af a one page "article" cannot change that. Bill/GPP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.237.99 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone actually read what is posted before climbing on the old soapbox? When and where did I say I didn't like the organization? At no point have I said, here or anywhere else, that I hate the British. I don't. Creators and not destroyers? Oh. You mean creative comments like i've been arguing with this IrishGuy asshole....what a cocksucker...so self-important[1] and ...stubborn, unimaginative, narrow-minded rule monkey with MST3K addiction and a problem with action figures and dating" is NOT an abusive ad hominem, but rather, factual and could probably start a Wiki entry on IrishGuy... [2]. Ah yes. The words of those who unite, not divide. As for your very serious movement, your forum has exactly 21 members. IrishGuy talk 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should consider enlisting persons with some sort of expertise in the subject matter of the article when assessing the significance of that article if there is any grey area in determining its "significance". In my own experience, one of the artist's that I published wrote an article about my small artist's press for Wikipedia. It was subsequently deleted, as it was seen as having been made solely to publicize that artist's efforts (which, perhaps, it was, as I can't know his motives). What I found very aggravating was that an argument over my press' "significance" became part of the Wikipedia record, when I certainly didn't ask for any such critique and had nothing to do with Wikipedia in the first place. In assessing this "significance", it seemed that the jurors' only understanding of the word "press" was a large commercial publisher. It seemed that noone who was responsible for making this decision knew anything about printmaking, the fine arts press, the small press, or any other relevant subject relative to the decision. Anyway, my point being, that to use a uniform yardstick for "significance", especially in areas related to the arts, wielded by people with little understanding of the various venues, means of distribution, and history of practitioners within those arts, will eliminate anything that is at all contemporary from Wikipedia. Only the most corporate, mass-produced, and ultimately insignificant products of contemporary culture will find homes here, because that's what will be most prominently displayed in Google. Polling a few folks who have no relation to the project, yet have some expertise concerning the small press and the poets involved, as to the significance of this particular movement would be the most sensible thing you could do. FimpressMarc, Fiji Island Mermaid Press
  • IrishGuy, your "forum" example is a prime indicator of how you so-called "editors" work: you make a decision based on INCOMPLETE information. the forum at the site is NO indicator of the movement's size; just look at our 2 month old MEMBERSHIP RANKS for that info: 70 members. which is it? so you choose the evidence that supports your frail claim of NON NOTABLE and expect us to agree? plus, if you have any inclination, you can google some of the member's NAMES and find out exactly how notable we actually are. but you won't. and I stand by my ACCURATE assertion that you are a MST3K geek. check out my recent post at the blog where I compare you to the geek on the UK OFFICE. funny stuff. although I myself enjoy tom servo and crew on occasion..remember, we are about uniting artists and thinking, feeling people who seek a larger vision in re: art, poetry and human connections. so far you've evidenced none of these traits in your stubborn refusals, my rule monkey friend...<---not rude, amused, see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.167.172 (talk • contribs)
What the forum example illustrates is that while you claim you have a large and active membership, your forum illsutrates quite the opposite. Small and not very active at all. And for the record, actually, I have never seen MST3K in my life. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to save the article it really is very easy: all you have to do is provide citations to prove that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the project itself, and demonstrate that the article is appropriately neutral. No more should be necessary. Alternatively you can waste a lot of time writing arm-waving assertions here which will be ignored as failing to address the issues of policy. Guy 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Marc is right. And Irish Guy, I said that you had a slanted point of veiw towards the British as I have read many of your posts. You may not have said that you HATE them, but it is clear that you do. You also said that as you have more contact with GPP members, the less you are "attracted" to us (see your post above.) As far as the members that called you names, that was not me. I always sign my posts with my IP or my name. Finally, The GPP was started 60 days ago with 10 memebrs, we now have over 70. Some of those names are not only big names in the small press, but well known actors, Media personalities, etc. One of our members is an actor who is listed on your very site. The fact is that we do not need to make our membership roles open to Wikipedia to prove that we are an important organization. If there was an "Editor" from Wikipedia that was familiar with this type of poetry, you would have heard of us.

Finally, as marc stated, you do not have the knowledge to know what we are doing. That is not an attack, just a fact. Just like I would have a hard time judging who is a well known Irish majician and who is not. There are ewperts in that field who know who is and who is not. The point is that I would not assume to tell others that a personality or entry was not significant BECAUSE I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT. Ask ANYONE in the small press poetry scene AROUND the globe and they know who we are. They know our movement, and they know many of the individual members. Many of our members are often published writers and are known throughout the world. By the way, please don't associate all comments from all members as mine and I won't associate all comments from other editors as from you. For the record, Bill/GPP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.237.99 (talk • contribs)

Saying that I disagree with using the politically charged term British Isles to encompass Ireland which isn't British is nowhere near the same ballpark as saying that I dislike the British. Please don't read nonsense into remarks that don't even remotely have those connotations. AS for the claim you do not have the knowledge to know what we are doing you know exactly nothing about me. You don't know what my interests are, nor do you know what I do for a living. You, frankly, don't have the knowledge to make any of the assertions you have been making. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IrishGuy, I'm sorry you've never seen MST3K, that show is funny as hell. anyway, enough of this garbage. WE INSIST YOU DELETE THIS PAGE AT ONCE. we're not gonna do it, YOU DO IT. and DO IT NOW. no further discussion. NOTHING ON WIKI IS EXPERT as it can be VANDALIZED. this is a waste of all of our time. we're real, and we exist and we're notable, and we're growing AGAIN at a 700% rate so SCREW THIS, PLEASE. DELETION FOR THE GPP! it's What's Right, you silly geeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.167.172 (talk • contribs)

To restate the request.... Please delete the page. We are not interested in being included in the Wiki project. I can safely way, Irish Guy, that I know that you do NOT get small press poetry. You may pretend that you do, but if you did, you would know who we were. The fact that you do not and rely on Google to see who we are, means that you do not know anything about the subject that you are claiming to want to control. That is all that need be said. I know that your type likes to argue. Frnakly, it has become very boring to me. I'll end this by saying that while you are making enemies, I'l be printing poetry and trying to CREATE. Again, in case youdid not get the point. Tell the folks at Wikidia to delete us. We do not need your website to be a movement that is notable and it probably works against us even being listed in a such a website. Thanks, Bill/GPP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.237.99 (talk • contribs)

I didn't put this up for AfD. I placed the importance tag on the article which you removed. That caused it to go to AfD. The guidelines state that the article must illustrate verifiable notability within the article. Hence, my placing the tag on the article for the authors to provide this information. That never happened. That means either your organization doesn't care enough, or there is no verifiable information to add. That is why my original statement in this AfD was: importance tag was removed without any sign of notability being given within the article. No, you cannot safely say anything about me as you don't actually know anything about me. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, Please do what you want and go ahead and have Wikipedia delete the "article". I'm done fighting with you. I have been polite to you, yet you want to fight. Again, the worst that you can do is remove a one page "article." It is not really a good fit anyway. I don't think that Wiki and GPP are very compatible. Thanks, Bill/GPP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.17.74 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how making unfounded accusations about me hating the British is being polite. You, clearly, must have a different definition of polite than I do. IrishGuy talk 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishguy, Clearly.... Why is the "article" still up? Bill/GPPBospress 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Guy, It is still up.... Bill/GPPBospress 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did it my damn self. can't even rely upon Wikipedia to delete things when requested. jesus. now we can concentrate more on creating things instead of denigrating IrishGuy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.238.3 (talk • contribs)

You do see where it says Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed on the main article, don't you? IrishGuy talk 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wants to read this, I'm not sure who blanked it, but it was not me. Since you (IrishGuy)kept telling us that we were not notable enough to have an "article" on your "website", we decided that it was not worth it to argue with you and beg you to be on a site that would do us no good anyway. So, I guess one of the other members did it. We don't need the red tape. If Wiki decides that they want to have us listed, they know where we are.... In the mean time, we will subvert the corporate bookstores with fine literture and grow at a FAST rate as has happened in the last 60 days. Funny thing is that the 'bots' noticed that the article was deleted and restored it. Please, anyone in the GPP, let's let them delete it. I could care less if they remove it, but I say that we should let them remove it. It would really be funny if Wikipedia decided that IrishGuy was wrong and ignred his recommendation to remove us. Either way, I won't lose a wink of sleep either way. It is just fun to watch. Signed, as always... Bill/GPPBospress 21:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also to Wikipedia, I'm not very computer literate, but I see 387 google hits under "guerilla poetics project". These are references to our work from websites (many are NOT members) from all over the world. They know of the movement and the organization and are talking about what we have done and continue to do. If you google some of our member's names, you willl see tens of thousands of references, including some that have articles on your very site. "S.A. Griffin" is only one example. Google "justin.barrett", "Christopher Cunningham", "Hosho McCreesh", "C. Allen Rearick", "Glenn W. Cooper", "Bottle of Smoke Press" and you will see we are not expecting Wikipedia to be a crystal ball. You should see that these names are some of the biggest names in the small press poetry scene, bar none. I can give 30 or 40 morre names that would qualify, but I have only listed a few that are involved with this literary movement. All best,Bill/GPPBospress 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look closer and remove the redundant hits, you will find a mere 54 hits via google. IrishGuy talk 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closer, like to the first entry here, you will see 39 listed. That was on October 17, and this is October 22. That means in 5 or 6 days 15 more links showed up. From 39 to 54 in five days. That's like - a million percent increase! (I was never good at math).
The fact that the article is still up after several people, including the person who originated it (me), deleted it, shows just what a useless flea circus this is. Sorry, not fleas - ants following ant rules. Ha. So important. You must all be very proud of the tremendously important work you are doing here. What a blessing upon society this cesspool of misinformation is! God bless you IrishBoy and SantaClaus and the rest...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smog.net (talk • contribs)
The original editor didn't give a link. There is no reason at all to assume that 15 more links showed up on a couple of days. IrishGuy talk 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SO IrishGuy, I guess that you don't trust your fellow "editor" Guy to report the links correctly? What wold make you think that he is wrong? Or are you just making the statement as a point of argument? The fact that you said "There is no reason at all to assume that 15 more links showed up on a couple of days." just shows that you have an axe to grind and everyone is wrong, BUT you. What would the original "editor" GUY have to gain by giving false information. The fact is that there were 15 more links in 5 days and as much as IrishGuy does not want to believe it, everyone else sees it for what it is. Just a guy with an axwe to grind. How sad... All best, Bill/GPPBospress 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that without a provided link, I can't say for certain how Guy got 39 hits. Please stop attempting to incite arguments. IrishGuy talk 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, I'm not attempting to incite arguments. You are just a sad, paranoid, little man. There is no argument to that. Just a fact. When Wikipedia removes the artcle, you will still be a sad, paranoid, little man. While the GPP is out there doing SOMETHING, you will still be sitting at your compouter trying to mess with other people. I bet that your family is very proud.... I'm not attempting to start an argument. You have made your case for removing the article. Now go away and find someone else that you don't feel is "worthy" of Wiki-"immortality". Hugs and kisses, Bill/GPPBospress 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks? How witty. IrishGuy talk 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE RECORD.... WIKIPEDIA... PLEASE REMOVE THE "ARTICLE". WE ARE FAR TOO IMPORTANT TO FIGHT WITH CLOSE MINDED LITTLE "EDITORS" WITH AN AXE TO GRIND. Thanks and have a great day! Bill/GPPBospress 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG, It is not a personal attack. Just a truth. Hey, we should start a Wikipage on you... ha! Again, you made your "argument" now is the time to bother someone else. We have asked how many times to remove the page and even tried to do it ourselves. Wikipedia 's "bots" put it back. You apparently care more about this issue than we do. This is NOT reverse psychology. We ave asked, over and over "REMOVE THE PAGE", "REMOVE THE ARTICLE"... What will it take? Bill/GPP

For someone who claims to be a poet, you have an extremely tenuous grasp of the English language. Calling me a sad, paranoid, little man is a personal attack in every single sense of the term. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, I never claimed to be a poet and am not a poet.... There you go making assumptions without any facts. Where was it again, that I claimed to be a poet? I thought so... how very, very sad... Bill/GPPBospress 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't know...maybe the author page of your site. Why be listed as an author if you don't write? IrishGuy talk 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG, You are sad and hopeless. "Poets, Publishers & Operatives." Where do you see MY NAME listed as a poet? I am a publisher. Published some of the biggest names in Poetry in the last 50 years.... Again, you made assumptions. Maybe you should go back to writing about "magicians". ha..... Bill/GPP/PUBLISHER/PRINTER.Bospress 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So when a name is listed under the author page it is an assumption to call that person an author? Frankly, if you aren't an author than it is your own fault for putting your name on the author page, not mine for calling you an author. IrishGuy talk 01:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IG, 1) You called me a "poet", not an author. 2) You don't know my last name. If you did, you would see that I am not listed as an author, either. 3) There is not a page that lists "authors". There IS a "Poets" page, and I am not listed on that one either. You really are sad when you grasp at straws in a feeble attempt to prove to ANYONE that you are somehow right. I'll YOU a favor and I wuill stom embarassing you in front of all of your Wiki-Friends. I will not respond to your inane posts. You are done. Argue with yourself. Argue with the Brits, Argue with your boss. I have more important things to do that to argue with someone so ignorant. Again, you can say whatever you want, but I will not reply. I KNOW that you cannot let it go and you MUST reply, but I will not read it. Hey, maybe you want to start a page on me? I'm like one of those "magicians" that you write about. Watch this... Poof. You're meaningless! Smooches... Bill/GPP (Not a Poet), (Not an Author). p.s. When are your wiki-friends going to remove the "article? I'm waiting.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bospress (talk • contribs)

Actually, your name is listed on the author page. Continue to deny all you want, I really couldn't care less. Your posts have grown pettier and more fueled with inane personal attacks. If you keep claiming that you are done here...why do you continue to return? Bored? IrishGuy talk 02:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you here? Do you post incessantly on every "article for deletion" that you see, or just this one? Will you answer this question with yet another question?
Allow me to answer for you, since you will answer with a question. The reason you are here is because it's the most excitement you've had for as far back as you can remember. That in and of itself isn't necessarily sad, but it does make me a wee bit weepy, so maybe I can help. We have members in Ireland, if you'd like, I can see if it's possible to scrounge up a date for you. You know, so you'll have something to do other than refresh this page every 30 seconds.
She may not be terribly pretty, but that doesn't really matter to you, does it? She'll have a nice personality. Your mum will like her.
Don't thank me, it's the least I can do. -- Love, Smog.net 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do see the irony of calling me names for continuing this conversation...as you yourself continue this conversation. Just an observation. IrishGuy talk 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guerilla_Poetics_Project&oldid=1137892695"