Vine hall, oxford, I liked this Options

[Peter Damian]

What a splendid article:

Vine Hall was an academic hall of the University of Oxford, located on Alfred Street in the 16th century. It later disappeared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_Hall,_Oxford

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 1st February 2009, 12:40pm

[everyking]

And Smith Jones has now nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it fails to "demonstratove notebility". I would imagine the place is worth an article, though. I wonder how it disappeared...do you suppose there was some supernatural cause?

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 1st February 2009, 5:01pm

[cyofee]

It vanished, like an old oak table...

[Jon Awbrey]

I would imagine the place is worth an article, though. I wonder how it disappeared … do you suppose there was some supernatural cause?

It's still there … just overgrown with vines … waiting for Prince Albert to get out of the can.

Ja³

[Milton Roe]

And Smith Jones has now nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it fails to "demonstratove notebility". I would imagine the place is worth an article, though. I wonder how it disappeared...do you suppose there was some supernatural cause?

Is Smith Jones on our something-vile-of-distinction voting list?

I'm always astounded-- though I shouldn't be-- at how Wikipedia is so often a mixed-up and decayed midden of the past, collected by a very few nerdish packrats, while at the same time a shining glass-cased museum of the utterly dirt-dishing and privacy-invading trivia of the present, curated by monster armies of fanboys. And through all of this, they take no notice of ethics or morals, and argue instead about meaningless proxy concepts like "notability." Which really, when it comes right down to it, means "ILIKEIT." Which is fine, but why keep lying to oneself?

I'm basically a try-to-avoid-being-evil sort of inclusionist. I don't mind trivia from the present and pop culture per se (indeed I encourage it, too), since it's basically tomorrow's history. And WP is not paper Just as long as it doesn't do damage to living people now. But such total inclusionists as live on WP haven't gotten to such distinctions, and so they do their own kind of damage, along with the deletionists who weed out whatever doesn't interest them, thus destroying the hard work of people who learn thereby that Wikipedia is not a project worth contributing to. Critics will be happy with that.

The vandals and gossipers who hold the power on Wikipedia seem to have no perpective at all. Not on history or government or ethics. Not on anything. They sort of remind me of ... children.

[Bottled_Spider]

It vanished, like an old oak table...

Yes - I've heard about that. It was during the night of the great Stepney fire, wasn't it? By all accounts, it was a most perplexing mystery.

[wikiwhistle]

AfD nomination withdrawn

[The Wales Hunter]

Ah, withdrawn so I'll lose interest within 30 seconds.

This Smith and Jones character seems to be one to watch, though. His shenanigans during the Kristen Norwegian Nudist debacle were something else!

[Jon Awbrey]

It vanished, like an old oak table …

Don't ever vanish an old oak table …

It'll reduce its value considerably …

Ja³

[wikiwhistle]

I think Smith Jones has been mentioned here before. He also has the weirdest grammar in (at least my) living memory.

[EricBarbour]

Yep, Smith Jones (T-H-L-K-D) is a real piece of work.

i find it aht it does not beat hte laugh testthat htis user has so quickly acomplied a detailed set of dilinated separatives between herself and John. i am asssumin g good faith that kristen and john are not the same, but the style of which they argue seems increasingly simular -- i compared x here re: to y here (where x = john and y = kristen) and they are strikingly similar in connotative denunciation.

Plus one of his first edits.
And there's this and this.

So much for "transparency".

If SJ is a joke account, the joke is verging on not-funny.
As long as he sticks to writing incoherent screeds, fine.
When he starts deleting valid articles with plenty of
good references, not fine.

It's not encyclopedia-building. Since this bullshit-fountain
operates with near-impunity, it's not an encyclopedia.

[Mike H]

If SJ is a joke account, the joke is verging on not-funny.

It's apparently always funny to type like Patty Duke on a bourbon and Miltown binge.

This post has been edited by Mike H: Mon 2nd February 2009, 6:19am

[Bottled_Spider]

Yep, Smith Jones (T-H-L-K-D) is a real piece of work.
If SJ is a joke account, the joke is verging on not-funny.
As long as he sticks to writing incoherent screeds, fine.

I see that Smith Jones is quite popular, here. Strange. Pretending to be dyslexic or an English-as-a-second- (or fifth) -language person is an old Usenetter troll's trick. I used to do it myself (though when I did it I like to think it was funny. Feh). It should be used sparingly; like adding a pinch of spice to a recipe. He lays it on using a paintroller. Very unfunny after a (short) while.

[Peter Damian]

I still think this is the best account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Troll

Esp. the category 'Wikipedians in Norway'. And see the talk page below for a laugh - the request seems to be entirely serious and without irony. Oh forgot Wikipedia doesn't do irony.

Hello, Troll, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance, your reasons for wanting this particular name.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again!--U.S.A. cubed 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Troll"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 2nd February 2009, 3:32pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

And see the talk page below for a laugh - the request seems to be entirely serious and without irony. Oh forgot Wikipedia doesn't do irony.

The only odd part about that message to me was that it was posted three years after Troll had stopped contributing. Apart from that, I see no problem with assuming good faith with regards to an account named "Troll"; odds are that it's, well, a troll, but in case it isn't, no point in being a dick about it.

[Bottled_Spider]

I still think this is the best account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Troll

Yes. Straightforward. Some may decry the apparent lack of imagination in choosing such a name, but not me. The daft tit only lasted for a dozen or so edits anyway, so sod him.

Hello, Troll, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Those mindless greetings are interesting. I wonder what would happen if someone signed-up with a username like 'You_Utter_RatBastard_from_Hell'? Obviously, they'd be told to change it and/or the account would be closed, but if a "greeter" got there first?

Hello, You_Utter_RatBastard_from_Hell, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Nice.

[Random832]

I still think this is the best account:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Troll

Yes. Straightforward. Some may decry the apparent lack of imagination in choosing such a name, but not me. The daft tit only lasted for a dozen or so edits anyway, so sod him.

Hello, Troll, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Those mindless greetings are interesting. I wonder what would happen if someone signed-up with a username like 'You_Utter_RatBastard_from_Hell'? Obviously, they'd be told to change it and/or the account would be closed, but if a "greeter" got there first?

Hello, You_Utter_RatBastard_from_Hell, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Nice.

Underscores don't work in usernames, so it would be "Hello, You Utter RatBastard from Hell, and welcome to Wikipedia."

This post has been edited by Random832: Mon 2nd February 2009, 8:01pm

[Bottled_Spider]

Underscores don't work in usernames, so it would be "Hello, You Utter RatBastard from Hell, and welcome to Wikipedia."

Even better. Heh.

[Alison]

Underscores don't work in usernames, so it would be "Hello, You Utter RatBastard from Hell, and welcome to Wikipedia."

Even better. Heh.

I've seen something in the block logs, along the lines of User:SomeAdmin blocked "a right shot from Cascarini, but Jesus scored on the rebound" ... or words to that effect Judicious use of account names can cause a lot of lulz in the block logs

[dtobias]

Maybe that vanished residence hall is actually a Tardis, and it'll reappear in some different time and place?