|
|
|
Jimbo's meat trauma gets "courtesy blanked", Aaah - it hurt his liddle feelings |
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Did anyone notice the afd for Mzoli's Meats get "courtesy blanked" by minions in deference to Der Jimbo, due to " many accusations of bad faith" against poor Mr Wales. According to leading Jimbo-DeathEater WjBscribe:QUOTE(WjBscribe) We should aim to be courteous whenever possible. If someone who participated in a discussion, reads a discussion, is the subject of a discussion on meta page which contains both (a) negative comments and ( b ) the real name of a person requests a courtesy blanking it should be done unless there is a very good reason not to.
Aww. Isn't that loyalty sweet. The afd hurt Jimbo's liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master publicly challenged. Shame that 100s of other people aren't treated with the same courtesy having fallen prey to Der Jimbo's grand public humiliation chamber. This also started a discussion about how afd's don't appear on google anyway, as they are exempt from the robots.txt thingy (I don't understand how these things work either). Again that's nice to know. Shame that they can't extend that to user pages, something that right minded people have been demanding for aeons. But courtesy at WP is only afforded to Der Jimbo and those in the WP aristocracy. Just as courtesy oversights only apply to those on the inside (if yer know wadda mean... shhhh!).
|
|
|
|
blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
I don't see why AFDs should be publicly viewable EVER. I mean they can get pretty freaking nasty, especially against newbies, and once they're done, they're done. While active, obviously they should be there, but once a decision is made, why can't it be deleted? I mean from the whole database. If it is up for deletion a 2nd time, wouldn't it be better to have the second discussion done on a fresh plate, without being biased by the first discussion?
This gets to what is one of the inherent problems with a wiki - you can never really delete anything, not completely at least. This is good in some ways, but bad in others.
Things like completed Arb Com cases and AFD discussions really don't need to remain forever. Its all good and fine to have article page revisions exist forever, to show a history, but not discussions. Once its done, its done.
|
|
|
|
LamontStormstar |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,360
Joined:
Member No.: 342
|
I am lucky the below posted after I spend a long time writing it because Wikipedia Review's server died once I posted... QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Thu 4th October 2007, 1:02am) I don't see why AFDs should be publicly viewable EVER. I mean they can get pretty freaking nasty, especially against newbies, and once they're done, they're done. While active, obviously they should be there, but once a decision is made, why can't it be deleted? I mean from the whole database. If it is up for deletion a 2nd time, wouldn't it be better to have the second discussion done on a fresh plate, without being biased by the first discussion?
This gets to what is one of the inherent problems with a wiki - you can never really delete anything, not completely at least. This is good in some ways, but bad in others.
Things like completed Arb Com cases and AFD discussions really don't need to remain forever. Its all good and fine to have article page revisions exist forever, to show a history, but not discussions. Once its done, its done.
An article will go up for deletion and maybe the first time it got kept or deleted. The next time, the people who voted the first time aren't there and lots of different people vote and a different result happens. Even with referring back to the first AFD, if a lot of people who like the article either show up or don't show up the article is kept based purely on votes of those with 50 or more contributions (called "consensus"). QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 4th October 2007, 1:09am) QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Thu 4th October 2007, 8:44am) QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 4th October 2007, 12:40am) The afd hurt his liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master challenged.
That's an awesome name and metaphor for abusive Wikipedia administrators who are Jimbo Wales's minions. They're easy to confuse as well: good point
|
|
|
|
Happy drinker |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 155
Joined:
Member No.: 14,765
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 10:38pm) Mzoli's is now of high importance, according to WikiProject South Africa. Not according to the project. In the opinion of one editor, NJR ZAÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Fri 13th November 2009, 5:33pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th November 2009, 10:38pm) Mzoli's is now of high importance, according to WikiProject South Africa. Not according to the project. In the opinion of one editor, NJR ZAÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. You're wrong again, Happy Drinker.
|
|
|
|
Happy drinker |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 155
Joined:
Member No.: 14,765
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 14th November 2009, 6:10am) You're wrong again, Happy Drinker. On the contrary, I'm right. My point was that it was not the entire WikiProject South Africa that made the claim, as you wrongly stated. It was one editor, who made a careless mistake. I'm sure we all look forward to your apology to the membership of the project. This post has been edited by Happy drinker:
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 22nd February 2010, 6:23am) It's perfectly OK to bump old threads, as long as you're posting something that's germane to the topic - i.e., an update on whatever the specific situation is, a new revelation about a past event, etc. Whereas, in this case... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) *Eats one more cup of dirt* Mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |