Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:30, 1 May 2012

So much silliness! --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and you've never fed into any "silliness" here? Not that I disagree ... I'm just sayin MZM. :) .. so how ya doin? — Ched : ? 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's fair.

I'm doing all right. It didn't rain today, so I can't really complain. How're you? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly, no denying it, but Jimbo had it right when he described Cla68's actions as trolling. And you know what they say about feeding trolls... Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good. got a shower or two here ... but all good. Question for ya: When ya gonna quit pissin off the arbs? You're damn good - how's come you play the "prove a point" shit? — Ched : ? 00:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm universally adored.

Balloonman made the right call. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not whatsoever. Calling it "forum shopping" is a direct insult to me, and the processes we have in place. It has been clearly explained elsewhere that it's unrelated to the current RFC. Many of those "keeps" stated to keep the page/delete the sentences OR were clearly unaware that MFD could be used to remove just the statements. Possibly the worst close in the history of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was strategically unwise to propose that the whole page be deleted. That might have turned off editors who'd have swung behind the delete-the-ad-only view. This was misconceived from the start, I think. Tony (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the editor returns the portion that is deleted, then MFD is the place to go, as per jurisprudence. MFD is NOT just for deleting the whole page. We just did the exact same thing with Cla68 with another portion of it the same way. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little like hyperbole to say stuff like "worst close in the history of Wikipedia", and its pretty obviously related to the RfC, even if you don't admit a direct connection, they were both triggered by Cla68's ad on his page, and are both essentially trying to determine whether it was ok to do. Funny thing is, with WP:IAR, you could theoretically have discretion to allow ads on anyone's page while simultaneously having a general ban. Maybe WP:IAR is the worst rule in the history of Wikipedia... um... no.

I would like to know why this is such a big deal. There has to be an underlying unstated mindset about why some people are getting so bent on this. What surprises me is that for decades, centuries even, we had paid encyclopedia writers making annals, encyclopedias, guides, manuals, etc. Yet somehow this community acts like you can't make a quality product or its integrity is at risk if you actually use money as an incentive instead of the mere joy of the work being the incentive. Like Jimbo often points out, whether a person is editing ethically is the most important consideration. This other stuff that people go on about just strikes me as jealousy or just petty envy or WP:OWNERSHIP. "So-and-so is getting paid to complete an article but really I, Mr.-Unpaid-Toiler-Faux-Humble, should have gotten the credit (and the money), and besides that editor is a sellout for not being as humble and purely dedicated to the mission as I." Hey, maybe I'm misinterpreting the attitudes entirely, but it sure feels like this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that once there is a dramatic increase in the number of paid editors, and that time is coming very soon, that you will all see an equally dramatic increase in the general quality of the articles in this project, as well as a general improvement in decorum among editors and admins. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ::::::Seems a little like hyperbole to say stuff like "worst close in the history of Wikipedia", and its pretty obviously related to the RfC, even if you don't admit a direct connection, they were both triggered by Cla68's ad on his page, and are both essentially trying to determine whether it was ok to do. Funny thing is, with WP:IAR, you could theoretically have discretion to allow ads on anyone's page while simultaneously having a general ban. Maybe WP:IAR is the worst rule in the history of Wikipedia... um... no.
 ::::::I would like to know why this is such a big deal. There has to be an underlying unstated mindset about why some people are getting so bent on this. What surprises me is that for decades, centuries even, we had paid encyclopedia writers making annals, encyclopedias, guides, manuals, etc. Yet somehow this community acts like you can't make a quality product or its integrity is at risk if you actually use money as an incentive instead of the mere joy of the work being the incentive. Like Jimbo often points out, whether a person is editing ethically is the most important consideration. This other stuff that people go on about just strikes me as jealousy or just petty envy or WP:OWNERSHIP. "So-and-so is getting paid to complete an article but really I, Mr.-Unpaid-Toiler-Faux-Humble, should have gotten the credit (and the money), and besides that editor is a sellout for not being as humble and purely dedicated to the mission as I." Hey, maybe I'm misinterpreting the attitudes entirely, but it sure feels like this. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::I predict that once there is a dramatic increase in the number of paid editors, and that time is coming very soon, that you will all see an equally dramatic increase in the general quality of the articles in this project, as well as a general improvement in decorum among editors and admins. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)