Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: False descriptor - none of these users are described as not a wikipedian apart from Malleus - and that was detracted - as such this is a disruptive and derisive cat - Youreallycan 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, is this just totally going over your head? Kennedy wasn't really a Berliner either. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't be sorry - I see only friends - the cat is disruptive and a violation of user guidelines though - Youreallycan 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, if I'm being disruptive then maybe I'm breaking the fourth pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or, it's not adding to the encyclopedia, in which case I'm disregarding the first and I'm not a Wikipedian. Or I'm declaring my solidarity, thereby violating NPOV, the second pillar, and thus I'm not a Wikipedian. Or you should ignore all rules, allowing me to be a Wikipedian in my non-neutral, policy-breaking, disruptive manner. That's the fifth pillar. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Your just being disruptive - Youreallycan 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • It's an expression of solidarity. Every editor needs support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would argue that this is a reasonable self descriptor for anyone who wants to edit the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit but doesn't want to belong to the 'club' of wikipedians. But I cannot because I'm a wikipedian who isn't a wikipedian and only wikipedians who are wikipedians should comment on wikipedian matters on wikipedians. Or something like that. I think. --regentspark (comment) 00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Given I have been just as rude and swear just as much as Malleus then obviously I am not a Wikipedian. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Please provide a decent rationale within guidelines - I like is is not going to be counted - Youreallycan 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just another twat, you really do not need worry about fuckers like me at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes -totally agreement with your comment - Youreallycan 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not a living person either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  like it is not a valued keep - why don't you block yourself if you want to protest? Youreallycan 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I gave one above. Improves editor solidarity, and as such editor retention, which furthers the goals of the encyclopedia. Erm, I mean, arf. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Absolute nonsense - Youreallycan 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Proof? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I'm not a friend nor an admirer of Malleus. This is not a violation of user guidelines. This category is a valid form a political protest. As Youreallycan has expressed his strong dislike towards Malleus, they are not in a position to be anywhere neutral on this. I highly suggest you not respond to any comments as that will stoke the "disruptive and derisive" flames more than the category would. Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  LOL - I have supported Malleus - diff on request - this Cat is disruptive and decisive though

• Speedy Keep Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Speedy keep - lol - why is that - provide a rational within guidelines -

• Keep- Legitimate expression of opinion. Reyk _YO! 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  False portrayal and disruptive and devisive cat - Youreallycan 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)