Talk:Ambition/Archive 1

There are a number of users inserting links to a card game called Ambition. The edit summaries have been rude and there is an appearance of spam. Please establish on this page why these links should be included, before reinserting them into the article. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You might want to familarise yourself with the history of Ambition (card game) and User:Mike Church before wading into this one. Pcb21| Pete 17:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The rude edit summaries have been coming from User:Lotsofissues, of whom it should be duly noted is on the same side as yours in the revert war.

This is a pretty well-established card game. It has an entry in BoardGameGeek, and a discrete fan base in several cities. It's not spam. 164.89.111.33 02:28 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I know one or more people is being an idiot by creating lots of usernames calling people nazi etc, but I do wonder if they have a bit of a point. In the original VfD debate, there was a clear vote to keep. It came round for a second vote (by which time VfD had got a lot more deletionist) and got deleted. It has some (not much but some) notability. Why not have a short article on the darn thing rather than to "punish" someone for trying to push their game by holding it to higher inclusion standards than other areas of the encyclopedia. Pcb21| Pete 08:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly 'inclusionist', myself, and wouldn't have voted to delete the original article. I do, however, dislike external links -- we're an encyclopedia, not a link directory, and I really feel that the card game should have an article rather than just getting an external link to their private site. For now, though, I've removed the link to the blog and left the one to the rules, which is a site far more appropriate to link to from an encyclopedia. I've also fixed the "External link" header; "link" should not be capitalized. kmccoy (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not allow this self-advertiser fool you. I found this article while participating on an unrelated college message board. This individual endlessly proclaimed the greatness and poularity of this game especially at its epicenter, Carleton, his college. Another Carleton poster asserted his claim is a fabrication. That's just one source, but I think his bizarre behavior spanning five accounts attests to how tirelessly he works to promote the popular "appearance" of his game. We can't allow him to shove his vanity links onto the page. lots of issues | leave me a message 06:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This user has started to harass me on the unrelated forum. I request he be blocked if at all possible. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are 23 Google results for "card game Ambition" almost all of which are wikimirrors, and 89 for "ambition card game" which are almost all wikimirrors. Ambition "card game" gives 24,500 but I can find barely any which relate to the specific game called Ambition. Matthew Platts 12:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Google of Ambition "card game" yields results on pagat.com, cardschat, boardgamegeek, GameBlog, and many other websites. This is more than enough. Spoon345 18:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The cynic in me reckons the people pushing the game on this website could've done the same on those too. Is that reasonable? Pcb21| Pete 19:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed a message from User:Mike Church that responded to User:Lotsofissues. It was full of personal attacks and not appropriate. However, it did argue against some of lotsofissues's points, so if you care to see the message, you may check the history. kmccoy (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Mike Church is blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing a comment which was not a personal attack against him. Calling Mike a "self-promoter" is not a personal attack. Mike's accusation that lotsofissues is a "poorly bred underachiever" is a personal attack, of course. Mike's alleged self-promotion is the issue here; Making cracks about other people's ancestry is off-topic and rude. Rhobite 20:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi sockpuppets,

Please stop adding the card game to this page. Thanks. Rhobite 16:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)