Wikipedia talk:Assume bad faith
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume bad faith page.|
|WikiProject Department of Fun||(Rated Project-class, Bottom-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.|
This could be funny, but it just drags. Melchoir 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Number these things
This page should use "#" instead of "*" so that the entries are numbered and we could refer to them more precisely when pointting people here. ;) --Abu Badali 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Assume what faith?
I love how nearly all of the examples (except what, two of the first five?) are of members holding ABF against other members or especially against admins. No single example of admins, meds, or arbs holding ABF against a member is listed. Whee. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary seems to imply an unneutral point of view about Uncyclopedia. How much does that POV agree with consensus?
The problem is that the Uncyclopedia page is a poorly maintained verbatim fork of this page; does this duplication of content need to be fixed somehow? As an active Uncyclopedia contributor, it would be possible for me to ask for the Uncyclopedia page to be deleted or rewritten. Does anyone feel that that is necessary? 18.104.22.168 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What a disgrace
I don't know who made this article on Wikipedia but it is a fraud. Even if it humor it nasty humor. This article is disgraceful. That is why I put the db template! It's time to say good bye to this bogus joke!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 15:12, 19 August, 2007 (User Talker Contributor)
- Did you read the intro? This page is a collection of warning signs that, if you think them, it may be time to take a long vacation from editing Wikipedia. The intent is to edify when a user might have gone over the edge from "productive" to "disruptive" by providing examples of what kinds of thinking lead to disruptive behavior, provided in such a way that the flaw or flaws in the logic are obvious. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Questionably useful in that regard, since the list is not concise (too long for most people to read thoroughly, which is bad for a list which is intended to show the reader how they're exactly the same way), and there are so many extreme examples that people would find it hard to relate to the comments and think, "Oh, I'm not like that," more than, "Oh no, that's exactly what I'm doing." --Raijinili (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)