This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 7 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion
Time to let this go and move on. The RFC close was clear on this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
!votes
No. It meets tangential and WP:NOTABILITY criteria for WP:See also and was excluded from the previous RfC closure. Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
sure brings no value here and nobody but the OP wants it. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This RfC serves no useful purpose. The previous RfC was very clear. Biotech should not be discussed in the article. So why should this article contain a link to NYC biotech? Boghog (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The closer specifically amended his statement to acknowledge this as a viable option which meets tangential and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Please read WP:See also. Castncoot (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That amendment was rescinded and you are exhausting the patience of the community. Drop it. Boghog (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
the horse is dead WP:STICK This RfC is a waste of time. Stop edit warring (else you will end up blocked) and kindly accept the result of the RfC with dignity.Polyamorph (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
All the more reason to include it when you're admitting that it's directly tangential, since the Tech companies article is nearly congruent with this one in the first place. Please read WP:See also. Also, it should be restored pending this RfC and the appeal on the main one. Castncoot (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. Please end your disruption.Polyamorph (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this isn't actually formally listed as an RfC anyway. Which is good as it never should! Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Now it is formal. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed that. This is ridiculous. You cannot start a new RFC because you don't like the result of the old one. Polyamorph (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
What world are you living in? You can't simply remove the RfC which I placed just because you don't like it! Stop that. And haven't you been following the overall discussion enough to know that the closer Tazerdadog specifically clarified his statement based upon discussion on his talk page to take the "see also" section out of the scope of the original RfC? Castncoot (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Restarting an RFC that you "lost" is disruptive. You should not have restarted it. As far as I can see the closing statement says absolutely nothing about the see also section. The result of the previous RFC is clear and continuing this is disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Read User talk:Tazerdadog#Silicon Alley biotechnology. I specifically requested clarification about the see also section and he agreed to amend his closing statement to remove the see also section out of the scope of that RfC, concluding that a single link in this section does not constitute discussion. You cannot try to deprive an editor of their basic rights, nor should you be characterizing this as "winning" or "losing". Castncoot (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The closing statement says nothing about the See Also section. The result of the previous RfC was clear. 'The horse is dead, back away...Polyamorph (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Do I need to spoonfeed you? Or is it just more convenient for you to pretend that you don't understand what I'm saying, that this edit by you therefore contains faulty reasoning and should be reverted? Castncoot (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Please. Stop beating it. It's dead. Polyamorph (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's up to editors discretion. Several editors have used that discretion. This does not need another RfC. Let the poor beast rest in peace.Polyamorph (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The RfC will take its course, that's not up to your discretion. Are you and User:Jytdog colluding about me and this topic by off-wiki e-mail per this? I'm suspecting now that the two of you may have potentially colluded during the previous (and separate) RfC as well, potentially leading to a rigged result there. Castncoot (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh my sweet spaghetti monster. No to all accusations. lol. Polyamorph (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My email to Polyamorph simply said that it would have been better to let sleeping dogs lie, than to have written this. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, I shouldn't have pointed it out, adding fuel to flames. But you don't have to explain yourself against wild conspiracy accusations! Polyamorph (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Such a comment should have been placed on-wiki, not off-wiki, and if anything reinforces the suspicion of collusion in my mind. Castncoot (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I was seeking to not embarrass you for your incompetence nor Polyamorph for their bad judgement in pointing out your incompetence. Whatever. You are free to think whatever you like; it doesn't matter. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol! That reasoning has never stopped you from posting such commentary here on-wiki before. This e-mail looks like an attempt to influence further discussion. Who knows how many there were before? Castncoot (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It's all a conspiracy against you! Everyone who commented on the RfC, the commentators at AN. We're all sat in a pub colluding. Polyamorph (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A feeble attempt at diversion from you. Nope, we're just discussing you and Jytdog now, who have admittedly been participating in the process of mutual e-mail correspondence, and regarding matters involving this discussion, during this discussion. Nobody else has been participating in such e-mail correspondence, as far as we know. Castncoot (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a joke. At your expense. Because I don't take kindly to baseless accusations. Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I messed up by amending my close to allow this can of worms to be opened. I have since remedied this on my talk page and by restoring the wording of the original close. This is a small tweak to emphasize that the consensus of the previous RFC applies to the whole article. That hopefully renders this RFC moot. My apologies to the community for the extra confusion. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AN appeal of RfC decision
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For information, an editor has appealed the RfC decision. See this. Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Silicon Alley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
_(retouched).jpg)