Toads
Why should I let the toad work
- Squat on my life?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
- And drive the brute off?
Six days of the week it soils
- With its sickening poison -
Just for paying a few bills!
- That's out of proportion.
Quotations corner
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Give a man Wikipedia and he gets a list of appearances of fish on Family Guy.
What we really need is something that encourages editors to see the big picture and discourages them from trying to enforce their own interpretations of ambiguous rules merely for the sake of 'proving' they are right, or of pushing the grey zone between the generally accepted interpretations a little bit in one direction.
— Hans Adler, on editors who seem born to recycle old arguments, old grudges.
This is not to malign all participants, but there are a core group of editors there that scream bloody murder against deletionists and immediatists and defend each other on that basis. It's like a mirror image of the deletionist ra-ra crowd that surrounded TTN during the older conflicts) …
I think people the people turning the matter into a battlefield are the most disruptive. Despite some vigorous disagreements, it doesn't need to get ugly. I've had some rather interesting discussions with people of opposing wikiphilosophy and walked away with mutual respect and appreciation for the substance of the discussion. We can't fix it all as ArbCom, nor should we, but we can set the tone and make examples if necessary. The inclusionism/deletionism divide is nowhere near as severe and the conflict nowhere near as ugly and wide-spanning as they were a few years ago. However, combined with recent BLP stirrings, this could easily spiral out of control with a return to the likes of such days as those of TTN and Badlydrawnjeff.
—A Arbitrator™, on the Article Rescue Squadron
There are 43,051 articles on the Recipe Wiki. The wiki for the Twilight series has 934 pages.
—An experienced editor, explaining why there are comparatively few female Wikipedia editors–they're only interested in cooking and sparkly vampires, apparently.
When one sets a bad behavioral example while energetically waving a flag around, it tends to give onlookers a less positive impression of the flag.
— chaos5023, neatly summing up a big reason to beware of self-avowed "inclusionists" and "deletionists"
I know the internet is the stuff a paranoiac's dreams are made of. I know it parcels up everything—Lee Harvey Oswald, Princess Diana, Al-Quaeda, Israel, MI6, crop circles—and with pretty blue ribbons of hyperlinks it ties them into a single grand conspiracy …
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
...this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so being "nice" should take a back seat to developing articles. On the other hand, this is a collaboration and anyone who can't cooperate with other people gets in the way of article development ...
— Atama, musing about civility
... I interfere in discussions ... and occasionally offer my worthless opinions to those who neither request nor appreciate them.
...the most insidious weapon elites have in establishing control is their influence over communal dialogue – not just about whats said, but especially about whats not said. So if we dont want elitists to overturn out inclusive founding values its important the community rejects their insistence on us only describing the loss of valuable work and information in flat neutral language
—A Wikipedia editor, defending his/her use of ridiculous hyperbole and emotive terms around the processes of editing the encyclopedia and warning of the coming of the Evil Elitist Cabal™. Look over your shoulder ...
Your cut-and-paste of policy is delightful, but your grasp of it seems lacking.
deletionist are Wikipedia editors who believe in deleting everything they can ...
—A user, missing both the point and the plural in one fell swoop
there is no rule requiring the letter 'e' to be used in all WP articles
—an editor, correctly pointing out a useless fact
—A Admin™, refreshingly avoiding the softly-softly approach
all the interesting stuff is taken out of Wikipedia … I started over four years ago, and we made so much progress in those early days, but alas, things went sour, and we keep loosing sic more ground, and more great editors are driven away, and no matter how many articles we save far more are destroyed ... —an editor, implying that in a few years there will only be one article left in Wikipedia - and it will be a boring one
As a member of the ARS, can I say that I have no idea what other members think they're doing in tagging this and arguing for keep. This is not an ARS problem, it's a problem with a handful of editors - Xxxxxxx xxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XxxxXxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx - who seem to have no ability to discriminate between articles on notable topics and synthesis-filled POV content forks like this.
The closing administrator isn't a magic source-making service. It's up to you to show the sources that can be used to "reference better" the article.
So be it, that a man of honor and a man of God ... can be called a liar (diretly or indirectly), and the insolent person doing so shall not be called to justice.
—A Wikipedia editor, claiming special dispensation for self-described honourable holy men (who are presumably uniquely qualified to detect insolence in others)
We aren't the Britannica. Wikipedia's articles are mostly popular culture.
—A Wikipedia editor, defining his own (personal) sixth pillar
I believe very strongly that users of Wikipedia coming to it the first time will perform 2-3 searches, if we are lucky, and will base their impressions of the site on those results. If those 2-3 searches yield nothing, it's bad, but if those searches yield junk, argumentation, inaccuracies, or blips of non-information, it's even worse. We are all aware that reference works have limits. If I do not find "polyphiloprogenitive" in an online dictionary, I know that there might just be a hole in that dictionary. On the other hand, imagine what reaction I would have if I did find it, and it said, "A word used in a poem." What would your reaction be? What if I found, "A new web company based in Tonga with cool products!" or "#redirect Words no one uses" or "A word often heard from Lord Viperskorpion on tel3D00dies?"
— Geogre, "When nothing is better than something"
Until we have AI, we need to use ours
— DGG, discussing how to use the Google intelligently
I'm not too bright and all, but all of that editing you do on that page sure looks like editing
— Bali ultimate, assessing the extent of an «uninvolved editor»'s … involvement
|
-
del |
This user is a non-aligned separatist |
+
inc |
| 7 |
Pablo X is 7 years, 6 months, and 5 days old. |
 |
This user has rescued over 9000 articles by improving them in the face of pending deletion. |
| AGF |
<user id="pablo x" style="height: 5328px; width: variable; align: center; agf-threshold: 50%; ">insert punchline here</user> |
| v ≤ c |
For safety reasons, this user never exceeds the speed limit. |
 |
This user has somehow managed to accuse himself of vandalism. |
|
