I just got my first block, Bet you can't guess why Options

[Pussy Galore]

Just look at the unblock request I have on my talk page and the sections I've linked (particularly the link to the section at the bottom of my talk page) it will tell you everything you need to know.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:20am

[Ryulong]

I read Rose's draft. Each of the sources mention "Encyclopedia Dramatica" no more than twice (including the one solely about it); and one of them was in a comment to the news story.

Sure, it exists, but none of those really say much of anything about it. All in all, I would say ED is about as notable as Daniel Brandt. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to know about it, but the real world doesn't give a shit.

[JohnA]

Sure, it exists, but none of those really say much of anything about it. All in all, I would say ED is about as notable as Daniel Brandt. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to know about it, but the real world doesn't give a shit.

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

[michael]

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

lol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.

All Pokemon have been prominently featured in several commerical, best-selling video games or on an anime show that was so successful that it has been dubbed into many other languages other than the native Japanese. That doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for their own article, so they've been combined into 25 lists that feature 20 Pokemon each.

Thousands of people use railway stations on a daily basis, though there is probably not very much meat in each article. I'd support merging them into the line they originate from.

[KamrynMatika]

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

lol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.

Please don't quote crappy Wikipedia essays at us to justify your argument.

[Pussy Galore]

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:49am

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

I just can't bring myself to click on the link - too repetitive, I already know it will be some variant of "you stepped out of line, now you're getting the cattle prod". This is the way of wikipedia.

Here's a question - without making reference to WP "policies", what do you believe would be gained from having this article, and what do you think is motivating them to slap you down?

[Pussy Galore]

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

I just can't bring myself to click on the link - too repetitive, I already know it will be some variant of "you stepped out of line, now you're getting the cattle prod". This is the way of wikipedia.

Here's a question - without making reference to WP "policies", what do you believe would be gained from having this article, and what do you think is motivating them to slap you down?

I honestly believe that the article is only not on Wikipedia because of people who have had personal issues with the site trying to censor any mention of it, and I also honestly believe that the primary motivation behind my block was simply that I was in favor of its recreation. Contradictory reasons were given for my block with no clear reason ever being given, and to be honest, even if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't cited by reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should make an exception in its case and give it an article just to avoid any possibility that its exclusion from the article namespace is not due to resentment of the site that many editors have toward it.

[wikiwhistle]

even if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't cited by reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should make an exception in its case and give it an article just to avoid any possibility that its exclusion from the article namespace is not due to resentment of the site that many editors have toward it.

Well good luck with that. They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine. But they would never do that with ED unless it becomes a household name, because it would be like giving free advertising to a site where there are very cruel articles about some of the admins and editors themselves.

[Somey]

They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine.

There is no Wikipedia Review article, only a redirect. (For a long time, there wasn't even a redirect, and my mentioning its existence will probably mean it gets deleted within the next 48 hours.) And the most recent edit to the Wikitruth article was to change the fact that WP administrators are contributors there to a "claim," when they know very, very well that it's true.

So yes, they can be accused of being like that, because they are like that.

[wikiwhistle]

They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine.

There is no Wikipedia Review article, only a redirect. (For a long time, there wasn't even a redirect, and my mentioning its existence will probably mean it gets deleted within the next 48 hours.) And the most recent edit to the Wikitruth article was to change the fact that WP administrators are contributors there to a "claim," when they know very, very well that it's true.

So yes, they can be accused of being like that, because they are like that.

Ah right, I thought WR had an article for some reason.