Talk:Pentax Q series

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Says where?[edit]

Espousing principles usually goes with some kind of link to a resource that says so. Otherwise I must assume it's your personal opinion/original research that it "must be so". Also, can you fix that messy template of yours? Template talk:DSLR cameras with movie mode - talk page comment has been sitting there for a while now. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 19:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of editors who search Wikipedia guidelines; surely you can do that too. I am sure that ONLY mentioning regional sales rankings of globally sold products would give a BIASED view, which is clearly against Wikipedia rules. wp:Promotion is clearly not allowed: Related things must be highly notable. Even product prices are complicated: Could be removed any time if no Special reason is given.

Otherwise: NOT the one who deletes text must prove something: Those who add something must prove the wp:Relevance, wp:Neutrality and wp:Verifiability. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misinterpretion of what Wikipedia is. Both favourable and averse things are included in every article, it is not required that an individual item be neutral. What's relevant is due weight. And since the finding was reported accurately and is relevant, I don't see the problem with due weight. Again, if you have an actual guideline to point to, please do. To deliberately refuse to do so is clearly obstructive behaviour. Samsara (FA • FP) 05:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again: NOT the one who deletes text must prove something. Nothing proven: Just stating something is relevant does not make it.

"it is not required that an individual item be neutral." Explain.

Calm down: Please no: clearly obstructive behaviour. Tagremover (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletions are not tolerated, so yes, you do have to state why you remove material. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation given. Try to read carefully. Tagremover (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. You implied that you don't consider it relevant, and I've stated the opposite. It's relevant to the Pentax Q since it concerns the Pentax Q - I don't think this can be in debate. Give your counter-argument, please, if you have one. Your claim that it MUST be global in order to be included isn't backed by anything. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rv: 1. its not over min.1 year, 2. its regional: must be world 3. Must be sure: BCN ? Additional rank or manufacturer data

sales rankings, especially only temporal, are not encyclopedic Tagremover (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit summary, and it's just something you made up arbitrarily as far as I can see. I've asked you to clarify where, if anywhere, these notions come from, and you apparently can't say. I've referred to you being obstructive in pretending that there is some guideline that you're referring to, which you will not name. Rather than dispelling that appearance, you've simply stated "no", proving my point. Show me that you can engage in consensus-building. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of discussion, as you refuse to understand. Tagremover (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just refuse to discuss and expect that to set the article in stone. If you are not willing to engage in consensus-finding, I must assume that you've withdrawn your argument. The usual way on Wikipedia is to collaboratively work towards a solution. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]