QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th June 2010, 2:15pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 15th June 2010, 2:12pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th June 2010, 5:01pm)
Salmon of Doubt remains an unsolved mystery to me.
Other-wiki identity is a mystery, perhaps, but the agenda was not.
His agenda was very clear. He said, in plain English, that he was a "suicide bomber" sent there to take me out (and willing to die in the process).
So what did they do?
They made him an Admin.
"They" = me. I thought we talked about that before, but it was really just a matter of him complaining ad nauseum and annoying the shit out of me, so I gave him the tools and told him to go ahead and take care of it himself in a way that "followed policy". He figured out that he couldn't do squat (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).
You're not the only one who believes in dialectical teaching, my friend. In this case, it was fun to just imagine the dialectic going on in his own silly head, as well as a reprieve from his constant nagging that "the admins
do something". Epic win for both of us, as far as I'm concerned (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif).
QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 15th June 2010, 10:49am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 15th June 2010, 10:10am)
That would undermine the entire system at Wikipedia (see WP:NOTNot!.)
I'm aware of that, yes.
My question is... IS this important enough that it should outweigh such considerations. I honestly don't know the answer, which is why I asked. But the system is currently undermined anyway, IMHO. Better explicit than implicit.
No offense, Lar, but my question about your question is: "who gives a shit what the Wikipedia article says?"
Our difference in views about WP's potential makes your argument just as valid as mine, of course, but I think my view is right and yours wrong, of course. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)