And another called "Shazam." You hit the "tag" button, and it records about 10 seconds of whatever song is playing in your vicinity. Then it looks up the song in a database and tells you the artist and song title.
How cool is that? I know of no other device on the market that can duplicate this functionality, let alone the usability.
Er, it's available on any model of phone. Shazam is a service that you phone up, and it texts back the song. I believe you're being confused because it appears that Shazam have jumped on the Iphone hype bandwagon, and produced a "just for Iphone users" version. The other commenter points out there's a Java app to do this too - this would explain why the Iphone needs its own special version, as it's incompatible with the standard that every other make of phone can use.
Just about all phones these days are mp3 players too, btw.
Amusingly, the article for Dj_harry was deleted soon after my post. And rightly so, believe me, it was bad - and of course you should soon be able to read it on Deletionpedia.
Finding a reliable source for when the Imac was released shouldn't be hard. As for stuff like politics, it can be difficult, but an obvious point to look for is whether an issue is disagreed with by different sources. The key point is that claims are (or should be) attributed towards particular sources, so we can see who made the claim. If something someone puts there isn't backed by a source, people shouldn't complain if it gets deleted.
It's a shame that whilst Deletionpedia has stirred up this debate, no one has actually gone and looked at it.
Go on, check out random page a few times, and tell me if you think that likes of The thinking pose and whatever else you find should have been kept on Wikipedia?
So maybe everyone in the world should have an article about themselves?
Maybe I can have an article for all of the quick software programs I've put up on my webpage? Or for a random piece of music I wrote for my music lesson at school 15 years ago?
Maybe Adam Gordon should be allowed to have his page on The thinking pose?
Let's be serious - there might not be space restrictions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is a free server for anyone to put up what they like. It is an encyclopedia, and there are many things that it is not meant to be.
And then we'll have people (possibly even the same people) whining that Wikipedia is unreliable, because "look at this stupid article that was visible on Wikipedia for a whole 30 days".
I mean, people whine about incorrect information on Wikipedia that's there for a few minutes - and you suggest 30 days?
Also, please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages , or have a check through some random pages at Deletionpedia, and tell me if you still think all of these pages should have been kept on Wikipedia for 30 days.
If something changes over 30 days, there is nothing stopping someone recreating an article and fixing the problems that got it deleted.
Let's take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deletionpedia&diff=next&oldid=239175544 . Firstly, with only one short sentence, this is not an example of "pages that people have put a lot of effort into". Secondly, it got proposed for speedy deleted due to not asserting importance. You don't have to prove it, or even show it - just assert it. That's not much to ask, and helps trim out pages that people write about themselves or their pet cat. Even if that short sentence article had got deleted because it didn't meet it, who cares - there's nothing stopping someone writing a proper article that follows the simple rules. Thirdly, as you can see from my link, the admin soon realised his mistake, and took down the speedy delete request. So no problem. And now after the AfD, the decision has been to keep the article - so it looks like the system's working fine.
And since you think this is a bad idea, perhaps you should take a look at some of the new pages. At a glance, I see the article Dj_harry. Are you going to complain about the proposal for speedy deletion on this article? (Perhaps someone can also complain that Wikipedia isn't as serious as Britannica... funny, maybe it's got something to do with the fact that Britannica doesn't have articles on "Dj harry"?)
So some nerdy high school kid is allowed to nominate articles for deletion within seconds of them been created.
And you think that many of these pages aren't created by nerdy high school kids?
I second the call for links. It's funny how people whining about Wikipedia never cite their source.
I bet most the people complaining are the sorts of people who write some nonsensical or unsourced article, or one that does not even assert why it's important, and then whine about Wikipedia that it got deleted. For all we know, the creator of List of films with monkeys in them is on here, complaining how crap Wikipedia is that his masterpiece of an article got deleted.
The sad thing is that elsewhere, people are also criticising Wikipedia because "It contains so much crap", because of the very articles that the former set of people write. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been edit wars, which result in both sides of the argument getting annoyed and complaining "Wikipedia is full of idiots who rv anything I write" and "Wikipedia is full of idiots who write complete rubbish"...
Do you have examples of wrongly deleted pages? Or editors who always unfairly vote delete?
Perhaps you refer to classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade, as some people here seem to think.
I recommend anyone criticising Wikipedia to actually go and look at Deletionpedia. Go on, do it - click on random a few times. I've never seen so much crap.
If people are seriously thinking Deletionpedia is some kind of argument against Wikipedia's deletion process, either they haven't actually looked at it, or if they really think that material should be on Wikipedia, they've got a strange view of what an encyclopedia should look like.
If something is PROVEN to be inaccurate, then that's another story.
Wait, wait, wait - so on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia when it has information found to be false, but now you want it to have any information people put there until proven false? Which is it?
Wikipedia can't win - as with many issues, there are always two groups of people (or sometimes the same people) who criticise it from opposite viewpoints, and it's impossible to satisfy both of them. And where it tries to be sensible and compromise between two extremes, that just means both sides whine about it!
Besides, I don't HONESTLY know of anywhere that I can quote wikipedia and be taken seriously. Encyclopedia Brittanica, et al, don't have that problem.
You shouldn't be quoting any encyclopedia as a reference, and if people will accept that, they're still fools. As with any encyclopedia, you follow the refences quoted by the encyclopedia article.
Furtherfore, this comment is absurd, given your earlier comments - do you think the Britannica editors have a policy of "We should allow any old crap written by anyone about anything, even if it has no sources"? And do you think their stance on this helps or harms their reputation as having reliable information?
This is another perfect example of criticising it from both sides: you complain the Wikipedia removes unsuitable articles, and then complain that it isn't like Britannica.
So some people on the Internet are an arse - but this hardly proves your claim of "Wikipedia has long ceased to be an accurate source of information, and more of an elitist bureaucracy."
If in doubt, provide a source, and you'll have no trouble getting other editors to side with your version. At the time of writing, the article says 1998.
At a brief glance, I agree that they should probably be separate articles, and not redirected - when I have a moment, I'll go and join in the discussion and see what I think.
I still don't think there's anything wrong with Wikipedia here - people are just disagreeing how best to represent the information, and unlike deletion, no information is lost.
People who wouldn't normally visit an articles Talk page visit AfD's because they place a big message on the article. By discussing it on the Talk page, you effectively bypass this.
But that's how it should be - a deleted article means the information is lost, so it's good to advertise it more widely. If someone makes a change or redirects it, you can undo it anytime in the future. So yes, it's easier for him to redirect "in backroom deals", but it's equally easier for people to undo that.
These backroom deals aren't just made by one person - they're usually made by four or five. So if you try to undo it, you're going up against four or five people.
If this happens, there are other ways on Wikipedia to raise the issue, to get more editors to look at it. These methods are probably more effective on the whole then mentioning it on Slashdot:)
And if the people still disagree with you - perhaps it's time to admit you're in the wrong. Wikipedia is a group effort, and you can't complain if sometimes not everyone agrees with you. Wikipedia is about achieiving a consensus, not about having your own way everytime.
3RR is there for a reason - it's there to encourage discussion, and not allow a single person to just rv every change he doesn't like, even if there's a consensus against him.
When we ban stuff like the publication of State Secrets, child porn, and that sort of stuff it is, in fact, censoring. I can agree that there has to be a limit somewhere. There simply has to for a civilized community.
But those things are not cases where things are censored merely for being depictions. Child porn should be illegal because it's images of abuse of actual children. State secrets aren't anything to do with claimed links between viewing and behaviour.
As for effects of violent images - if that is really a problem, there's a whole load of violent films that would need to be banned, I don't see why it's just images on the Internet.
Sure, though it is still worrying if they cave into political or media scaremongering (it's one thing for them to decide they don't want the material at all, but that's not what's happened here - it's just the UK they're blocking). We can still criticise them for that, and I wouldn't put it past the UK Government to try to bring in new laws either to block content or criminalise it (either publication or possession). Some MPs have called for this; there's also the recent plans to criminalise pro-choice suicide websites not to mention the recent criminalisation of possession of "extreme" adult images.
Just to add to that - far from proving me wrong, now that I've had a look through Deletionpedia articles, I think it proves my right, that deletion on the whole is a good thing, as people can see just how much crap there is that people put onto Wikipedia.
If the site's intention was to claim that articles are wrongly deleted, I think it's just going to backfire.
Do you have an example of an article of yours that was unfairly deleted?
Why should I accept that as a reason for deletion, especially in an encyclopedia, doubly so in one that claims for itself to accumulate the knowledge of the world?
What do you mean especially for an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is especially where being notable is important, or do you think Britannica have all these sorts of articles that Wikipedia deletes?
And summarising the knowledge of the world does not mean that they claim they want articles on every possible topic. There are many things that Wikipedia is not.
The fact that there's an entire wiki dedicated to preserving these cases, and it has tens of thousands of articles in it proves you wrong.
The article has tens of thousands of articles that were deleted - this does not mean there are tens of thousands of articles that were wrongly deleted! This includes classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade.
Ah at last, an article that failed notability. Do you think that was unfairly deleted? If so, do you think I can have a Wikipedia article as a programmer? I'm not a notable programmer, but that shouldn't stop me having my own Wikipedia article, right?
I'm know that some such unfairly deleted articles exist as the system isn't perfect, I agree, but I'm curious what sort of articles you are talking about? Can you give me examples?
And what do people associate with "working in an office" versus "being at home in casual clothes"? Of course Apple intended to give the idea that PCs are boring, but Macs are exciting and fashionable - that's what advertising is all about. It's the "insecure geek"s that probably explains why so many people here seem completely oblivious as to the purpose of advertising. Anywhere else people are well aware that adverts are about making products seem tempting, fashionable or cool - it's not an "insecure geek" thing, on the contrary, it's an insecure geek thing to miss that implication, and only assume the most literal interpretation of an advert.
Anyhow, this is irrelevant as the same argument could be made for the Microsoft ads - they too are just making the point that PCs aren't just used in an office.
Then, the nominator, having failed in his attempt to delete it, merges it, despite consensus to the contrary, into App Store.
That's not how I see it. Yes, most people said keep, but this does not necessarily entail they disagree with a redirect (unless they specifically say that, which they don't), but rather to not delete the article. Yes, sometimes people vote "redirect", which means that they only think it should be kept in this form, but not as its own article. But the reverse is not true - this doesn't mean that an article can never be merged, just because it survives an AfD.
The talk page that you linked to showed that there was a consensus to merge.
Moreover, it's not a problem as redirects can always be done. As can deletions of a section, that you refer to later. And at the current time, I Am Rich is still in the article. So what's the problem? If you think it deserves its own article, say so in the talk page, pointing out the AfD result, maybe be bold and undo the merge. The reason why AfDs require more consideration is that deletes can't easily be undone. But if someone redirects or deletes content - big deal, undo it if you disagree.
As for the Sarah Connor episode, the article is right now not redirected. In fact, the redirection was undone by someone just an hour later.
Yes, some people on the Internet are a pain, and some of them edit on Wikipedia. I have plenty of my own stories of people being a pain:) But at the end of the day, the system is working, in my opinion.
Torchic is interesting, but I don't see where there is a problem - someone decided it was better as a redirect. If you disagree, why not revert it? No one has contested it, and I'm sure if there was a dispute, given the FA status you would be supported by other editors. I don't see that the editor did anything wrong - if you disagree, that's up to you, but I'm sure it was done in good faith. Sometimes articles are better off being merged together. Other times they aren't. But why should more weight be given to someone picking about it on Slashdot, compared with someone who's actually doing the work of editing Wikipedia?
Out of interest, what was the article of your project that got deleted? They're wrong to require print references - online is just as good. OTOH, I can imagine that many software projects (open source or otherwise) do not have the required 3rd party references. And did you write the article yourself, or did someone else?
I've written several pieces of software that have been reviewed in print magazines (nothing recent - this was about 10 years ago). But I'm not convinced that makes any of them worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. If someone writes an article about one of them, great, but I'm not bothered if not.
If Apple ignores these ads (which they will because they have no "punch") Microsoft will end up looking petty.
Microsoft won't look petty, because they still stand on their own merits - it's an advert promoting PCs. And if Apple's response is to stop doing their ads, then that is a win for Microsoft in itself.
Don't draw attention to your opponent unless he has managed to grab sufficient mind-share to demand a response! Microsoft still has the lead in the market, so there is no way they can "win" back attention they haven't lost.
But that's exactly why they don't mention Macs at all. Apple are the ones who criticise PCs, and if they continue to do so, they will continue to look even more petty (especially now as Microsoft have created the impression in people's minds about how these ads are stereotyping users too).
In the Mac ad where the PC gets sick, it is *not* the implication that PC users are getting sick, it's that PCs get viruses.
You've got the logic backwards. People aren't claiming that they are never referring to the machines - obviously they are. However, the point is that they are also stereotyping the users. To show that, it's not enough to show that some references apply to machines, you have to chose that none of them could apply to users.
Or do you think that PCs wear business suits, and Macs wear casual clothing?
Slashdot Mirror
And another called "Shazam." You hit the "tag" button, and it records about 10 seconds of whatever song is playing in your vicinity. Then it looks up the song in a database and tells you the artist and song title.
How cool is that? I know of no other device on the market that can duplicate this functionality, let alone the usability.
Er, it's available on any model of phone. Shazam is a service that you phone up, and it texts back the song. I believe you're being confused because it appears that Shazam have jumped on the Iphone hype bandwagon, and produced a "just for Iphone users" version. The other commenter points out there's a Java app to do this too - this would explain why the Iphone needs its own special version, as it's incompatible with the standard that every other make of phone can use.
Just about all phones these days are mp3 players too, btw.
Amusingly, the article for Dj_harry was deleted soon after my post. And rightly so, believe me, it was bad - and of course you should soon be able to read it on Deletionpedia.
Finding a reliable source for when the Imac was released shouldn't be hard. As for stuff like politics, it can be difficult, but an obvious point to look for is whether an issue is disagreed with by different sources. The key point is that claims are (or should be) attributed towards particular sources, so we can see who made the claim. If something someone puts there isn't backed by a source, people shouldn't complain if it gets deleted.
I am in full agreement.
(If your post gets modded down, can we whine that "OMG Slashdot doesn't allow criticism my comment got modded down"?)
It's a shame that whilst Deletionpedia has stirred up this debate, no one has actually gone and looked at it.
Go on, check out random page a few times, and tell me if you think that likes of The thinking pose and whatever else you find should have been kept on Wikipedia?
So maybe everyone in the world should have an article about themselves?
Maybe I can have an article for all of the quick software programs I've put up on my webpage? Or for a random piece of music I wrote for my music lesson at school 15 years ago?
Maybe Adam Gordon should be allowed to have his page on The thinking pose?
Let's be serious - there might not be space restrictions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is a free server for anyone to put up what they like. It is an encyclopedia, and there are many things that it is not meant to be.
And then we'll have people (possibly even the same people) whining that Wikipedia is unreliable, because "look at this stupid article that was visible on Wikipedia for a whole 30 days".
I mean, people whine about incorrect information on Wikipedia that's there for a few minutes - and you suggest 30 days?
Also, please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages , or have a check through some random pages at Deletionpedia, and tell me if you still think all of these pages should have been kept on Wikipedia for 30 days.
If something changes over 30 days, there is nothing stopping someone recreating an article and fixing the problems that got it deleted.
I was amused by the AfD comment "Transwiki to Deletionpedia"...
(Although yes I agree with you - I commented Keep myself, and indeed it looks like the result has been to keep.)
Let's take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deletionpedia&diff=next&oldid=239175544 . Firstly, with only one short sentence, this is not an example of "pages that people have put a lot of effort into". Secondly, it got proposed for speedy deleted due to not asserting importance. You don't have to prove it, or even show it - just assert it. That's not much to ask, and helps trim out pages that people write about themselves or their pet cat. Even if that short sentence article had got deleted because it didn't meet it, who cares - there's nothing stopping someone writing a proper article that follows the simple rules. Thirdly, as you can see from my link, the admin soon realised his mistake, and took down the speedy delete request. So no problem. And now after the AfD, the decision has been to keep the article - so it looks like the system's working fine.
There's also nothing odd about how quick it happens - people can view new pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages , so they can be reviewed quickly.
And since you think this is a bad idea, perhaps you should take a look at some of the new pages. At a glance, I see the article Dj_harry. Are you going to complain about the proposal for speedy deletion on this article? (Perhaps someone can also complain that Wikipedia isn't as serious as Britannica ... funny, maybe it's got something to do with the fact that Britannica doesn't have articles on "Dj harry"?)
So some nerdy high school kid is allowed to nominate articles for deletion within seconds of them been created.
And you think that many of these pages aren't created by nerdy high school kids?
I second the call for links. It's funny how people whining about Wikipedia never cite their source.
I bet most the people complaining are the sorts of people who write some nonsensical or unsourced article, or one that does not even assert why it's important, and then whine about Wikipedia that it got deleted. For all we know, the creator of List of films with monkeys in them is on here, complaining how crap Wikipedia is that his masterpiece of an article got deleted.
The sad thing is that elsewhere, people are also criticising Wikipedia because "It contains so much crap", because of the very articles that the former set of people write. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been edit wars, which result in both sides of the argument getting annoyed and complaining "Wikipedia is full of idiots who rv anything I write" and "Wikipedia is full of idiots who write complete rubbish"...
Do you have examples of wrongly deleted pages? Or editors who always unfairly vote delete?
Perhaps you refer to classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade, as some people here seem to think.
Deleting ANYTHING from wikipedia is stupid.
I recommend anyone criticising Wikipedia to actually go and look at Deletionpedia. Go on, do it - click on random a few times. I've never seen so much crap.
If people are seriously thinking Deletionpedia is some kind of argument against Wikipedia's deletion process, either they haven't actually looked at it, or if they really think that material should be on Wikipedia, they've got a strange view of what an encyclopedia should look like.
If something is PROVEN to be inaccurate, then that's another story.
Wait, wait, wait - so on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia when it has information found to be false, but now you want it to have any information people put there until proven false? Which is it?
Wikipedia can't win - as with many issues, there are always two groups of people (or sometimes the same people) who criticise it from opposite viewpoints, and it's impossible to satisfy both of them. And where it tries to be sensible and compromise between two extremes, that just means both sides whine about it!
Besides, I don't HONESTLY know of anywhere that I can quote wikipedia and be taken seriously. Encyclopedia Brittanica, et al, don't have that problem.
You shouldn't be quoting any encyclopedia as a reference, and if people will accept that, they're still fools. As with any encyclopedia, you follow the refences quoted by the encyclopedia article.
Furtherfore, this comment is absurd, given your earlier comments - do you think the Britannica editors have a policy of "We should allow any old crap written by anyone about anything, even if it has no sources"? And do you think their stance on this helps or harms their reputation as having reliable information?
This is another perfect example of criticising it from both sides: you complain the Wikipedia removes unsuitable articles, and then complain that it isn't like Britannica.
I love it - people criticise the reliability of Wikipedia, but are quite happy to believe random hearsay posted anonymously on Slashdot.
So some people on the Internet are an arse - but this hardly proves your claim of "Wikipedia has long ceased to be an accurate source of information, and more of an elitist bureaucracy."
If in doubt, provide a source, and you'll have no trouble getting other editors to side with your version. At the time of writing, the article says 1998.
At a brief glance, I agree that they should probably be separate articles, and not redirected - when I have a moment, I'll go and join in the discussion and see what I think.
I still don't think there's anything wrong with Wikipedia here - people are just disagreeing how best to represent the information, and unlike deletion, no information is lost.
People who wouldn't normally visit an articles Talk page visit AfD's because they place a big message on the article. By discussing it on the Talk page, you effectively bypass this.
But that's how it should be - a deleted article means the information is lost, so it's good to advertise it more widely. If someone makes a change or redirects it, you can undo it anytime in the future. So yes, it's easier for him to redirect "in backroom deals", but it's equally easier for people to undo that.
These backroom deals aren't just made by one person - they're usually made by four or five. So if you try to undo it, you're going up against four or five people.
If this happens, there are other ways on Wikipedia to raise the issue, to get more editors to look at it. These methods are probably more effective on the whole then mentioning it on Slashdot :)
And if the people still disagree with you - perhaps it's time to admit you're in the wrong. Wikipedia is a group effort, and you can't complain if sometimes not everyone agrees with you. Wikipedia is about achieiving a consensus, not about having your own way everytime.
3RR is there for a reason - it's there to encourage discussion, and not allow a single person to just rv every change he doesn't like, even if there's a consensus against him.
When we ban stuff like the publication of State Secrets, child porn, and that sort of stuff it is, in fact, censoring. I can agree that there has to be a limit somewhere. There simply has to for a civilized community.
But those things are not cases where things are censored merely for being depictions. Child porn should be illegal because it's images of abuse of actual children. State secrets aren't anything to do with claimed links between viewing and behaviour.
As for effects of violent images - if that is really a problem, there's a whole load of violent films that would need to be banned, I don't see why it's just images on the Internet.
Sure, though it is still worrying if they cave into political or media scaremongering (it's one thing for them to decide they don't want the material at all, but that's not what's happened here - it's just the UK they're blocking). We can still criticise them for that, and I wouldn't put it past the UK Government to try to bring in new laws either to block content or criminalise it (either publication or possession). Some MPs have called for this; there's also the recent plans to criminalise pro-choice suicide websites not to mention the recent criminalisation of possession of "extreme" adult images.
Just to add to that - far from proving me wrong, now that I've had a look through Deletionpedia articles, I think it proves my right, that deletion on the whole is a good thing, as people can see just how much crap there is that people put onto Wikipedia.
If the site's intention was to claim that articles are wrongly deleted, I think it's just going to backfire.
Do you have an example of an article of yours that was unfairly deleted?
Why should I accept that as a reason for deletion, especially in an encyclopedia, doubly so in one that claims for itself to accumulate the knowledge of the world?
What do you mean especially for an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is especially where being notable is important, or do you think Britannica have all these sorts of articles that Wikipedia deletes?
And summarising the knowledge of the world does not mean that they claim they want articles on every possible topic. There are many things that Wikipedia is not.
The fact that there's an entire wiki dedicated to preserving these cases, and it has tens of thousands of articles in it proves you wrong.
The article has tens of thousands of articles that were deleted - this does not mean there are tens of thousands of articles that were wrongly deleted! This includes classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade.
Ah at last, an article that failed notability. Do you think that was unfairly deleted? If so, do you think I can have a Wikipedia article as a programmer? I'm not a notable programmer, but that shouldn't stop me having my own Wikipedia article, right?
I'm know that some such unfairly deleted articles exist as the system isn't perfect, I agree, but I'm curious what sort of articles you are talking about? Can you give me examples?
What's your solution to fix the problem?
And what do people associate with "working in an office" versus "being at home in casual clothes"? Of course Apple intended to give the idea that PCs are boring, but Macs are exciting and fashionable - that's what advertising is all about. It's the "insecure geek"s that probably explains why so many people here seem completely oblivious as to the purpose of advertising. Anywhere else people are well aware that adverts are about making products seem tempting, fashionable or cool - it's not an "insecure geek" thing, on the contrary, it's an insecure geek thing to miss that implication, and only assume the most literal interpretation of an advert.
Anyhow, this is irrelevant as the same argument could be made for the Microsoft ads - they too are just making the point that PCs aren't just used in an office.
Then, the nominator, having failed in his attempt to delete it, merges it, despite consensus to the contrary, into App Store.
That's not how I see it. Yes, most people said keep, but this does not necessarily entail they disagree with a redirect (unless they specifically say that, which they don't), but rather to not delete the article. Yes, sometimes people vote "redirect", which means that they only think it should be kept in this form, but not as its own article. But the reverse is not true - this doesn't mean that an article can never be merged, just because it survives an AfD.
The talk page that you linked to showed that there was a consensus to merge.
Moreover, it's not a problem as redirects can always be done. As can deletions of a section, that you refer to later. And at the current time, I Am Rich is still in the article. So what's the problem? If you think it deserves its own article, say so in the talk page, pointing out the AfD result, maybe be bold and undo the merge. The reason why AfDs require more consideration is that deletes can't easily be undone. But if someone redirects or deletes content - big deal, undo it if you disagree.
As for the Sarah Connor episode, the article is right now not redirected. In fact, the redirection was undone by someone just an hour later.
Yes, some people on the Internet are a pain, and some of them edit on Wikipedia. I have plenty of my own stories of people being a pain :) But at the end of the day, the system is working, in my opinion.
Torchic is interesting, but I don't see where there is a problem - someone decided it was better as a redirect. If you disagree, why not revert it? No one has contested it, and I'm sure if there was a dispute, given the FA status you would be supported by other editors. I don't see that the editor did anything wrong - if you disagree, that's up to you, but I'm sure it was done in good faith. Sometimes articles are better off being merged together. Other times they aren't. But why should more weight be given to someone picking about it on Slashdot, compared with someone who's actually doing the work of editing Wikipedia?
Notability is not a policy AFAICS, it's still a guideline. The policies are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies , and notability is not one of them. As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability , notability is as you say a guideline, that has a general consensus, but it is not policy.
Out of interest, what was the article of your project that got deleted? They're wrong to require print references - online is just as good. OTOH, I can imagine that many software projects (open source or otherwise) do not have the required 3rd party references. And did you write the article yourself, or did someone else?
I've written several pieces of software that have been reviewed in print magazines (nothing recent - this was about 10 years ago). But I'm not convinced that makes any of them worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. If someone writes an article about one of them, great, but I'm not bothered if not.
If Apple ignores these ads (which they will because they have no "punch") Microsoft will end up looking petty.
Microsoft won't look petty, because they still stand on their own merits - it's an advert promoting PCs. And if Apple's response is to stop doing their ads, then that is a win for Microsoft in itself.
Don't draw attention to your opponent unless he has managed to grab sufficient mind-share to demand a response! Microsoft still has the lead in the market, so there is no way they can "win" back attention they haven't lost.
But that's exactly why they don't mention Macs at all. Apple are the ones who criticise PCs, and if they continue to do so, they will continue to look even more petty (especially now as Microsoft have created the impression in people's minds about how these ads are stereotyping users too).
In the Mac ad where the PC gets sick, it is *not* the implication that PC users are getting sick, it's that PCs get viruses.
You've got the logic backwards. People aren't claiming that they are never referring to the machines - obviously they are. However, the point is that they are also stereotyping the users. To show that, it's not enough to show that some references apply to machines, you have to chose that none of them could apply to users.
Or do you think that PCs wear business suits, and Macs wear casual clothing?