Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 13 November 2006

Welcome to the discussion

Shortcut

[[:|WT:ROUGE]]

Regarding ise/ize (surely one of the most important questions of the day!)... who wrote the bulk of this? The language of their mother country, by convention, is what should dictate how ise/ize is done. JzG's nefarious and facile reversions notwithstanding.

-- a rouge non admin: ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dun this, and I are British. 'nuf sed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to meta

This needs to be moved to metapedia possibly to go with m:MPOV — Dunc|☺ 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Might break the rather clever CydeweysRedirect^TM from Image:Rouge-Admin.png, though. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rouge? ROUGE? you probably mean rogue 134.117.175.20 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment on the disparity, hopefully keeping with the humor of the article :). Domenic Denicola 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article name change

Shouldn't we move this article to "Rogue administrators"? I really don't know what a Rouge admin is, unless they work for the Mulon Rouge, but that hardly makes any sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding the spelling of 'Rouge admin' is grounds for an IMMEDIATE block. [1] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Moulin Rouge. Roguegeek 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't funny

I'm asking you to remove "Zionist" from the Wikipedia:Rouge admin page. I really don't find it funny, and I hope you're not serious either. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course it's not serious, didn't you see the banner at the top? As for removing zionist, that one's gonna stay. A.) It's a charge that comes along frequently, along with all those others listed, B.) It's an essay, not an article, or guideline, or policy. No one cares enough to remove it here, but they do to revert for messing with a historical entry. -M^ask 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to insist that 'Cowardly' is removed from the same line on behalf of all cowards, but I'm too scared. The Mafia have, however, promised to give a brown envelope to whoever removes 'Corrupt', an unwarranted slur on wheel-greasers everywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place for that remark, even under that banner. You're taking the "wiki spirit" way too far, it's still under the Wikipedia: namespace and not at your private member page. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it. —Nightstallion (?) 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a problem, this stinks! You should grow up and try to contribute. --Swedenborg 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of humour disturbing. —Nightstallion (?) 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and I find your sense of humour disturbing. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the word entire offensive, please remove it! (kidding> HighInBC 13:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link

The external link seems to be missing from the Domain Name Server accessed by my computer; it's as if the domain name didn't exist. The Wayback machine hasn't archived it, but as of now it's still in Google's cache. Has it been deleted, or is it a local DNS problem? --ais523 13:21, 28 June 2006 (U T C)

Must have been a local problem; it's working again now. --ais523 12:53, 30 June 2006 (U T C)

This should be deleted

Article makes no sense at all. And yet the adminds delete some informative articles,but this one takes the cake.

I'm undecided on this. I stumbled across it about 20 minutes ago and have been contemplating it since. Although slightly humerous that should not be used as a mask for it to be offensive which I fear it is bordering on. Equally, although humerous, without a proper explanation of what it means and what a Rouge Admin is it is nothing more than a nonsensical joke to most readers. I don't think deleting it is the answer, perhaps adding a second section along the lines of "but seriously..." and then explaining in plain and clear english what this page is refering to? perhaps someone who knows what it means could do this? The other thing is by its very nature this concept and article does not assume good faith which I find quite concerning especially when its endorsed by administrators of wikipedia who should be abiding by the good faith policy. Don't get me wrong please, I dont for a second suggest that this is by any means a deliberate flouting of the good faith policy but feel what has been intended as little more than sly humour is being taken by the bulk of its readers to be something else. Just my 2 pence...well more like £15. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article should be deleted. When can *I* become an admin or whatever it takes, so that I can create really unfunny in-joke comedy articles presented as Wikipedia-sanctioned documents too? wikipediatrix 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA is open to all. Now go back and read the essay carefully, looking for the hidden meaning. I promise you there is a serious and important point in there. Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never be made an admin because I've made too many enemies nominating articles for deletion that were near and dear to a lot of people's hearts, plus I've committed the cardinal sin of (politely) daring to question a couple of well-known super-popular admins who don't like their authority questioned. As for the hidden meaning, zen koans give me a headache, and I like to think I'm not the dullest pencil in the box, so I know the article's esoteric parable must be lost on many other readers as well ;) wikipediatrix 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any admins who are both well-known and popular. ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is Tony Sidawy is well known and very popular. Whispering^(talk/c) 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know despite my earlier comment that I didn't think deletion was the answer I have now changed my mind and will probably be requesting this page for deletion shortly. Having re-read it several times in an attempt to fully understand why it was written I now feel that this article is unsalvageable and I fear it sets a bad precedent for readers for the following reasons:

By using the term 'Rouge Admin' in its title and throughout it attempts to add veracity to its argument with power. Adminship is not power however.
As an essay it is poor because it does not consider alternate view points or multiple ideas on the subject matter and so only presents a one sided argument which isn’t fully explained.
On the face of it, it's intended to seem humorous. It isn't unless you're one of a minority to whom it is an in-joke.
It uses the facade of humour as an excuse to be offensive to a considerable group of people. Putting a ‘this article contains humour’ tag on it is not an excuse to be rude. It's like calling someone a fat idiot and then saying ‘no offence intended’.
Although it conveys the seemingly good underlying message of admins deleting that which isn't properly cited and verifiable, it does not state this. And even now after having read the article some 6-7 times I am still not entirely convinced that is its message.
It totally fails to actually make any sense to most readers because of its cryptically worded humour.
But for me personally I feel that I've saved the best till last. This essay fundamentally does not assume good faith. Rather it assumes that there is a group of editors willing to go to any lengths to make their small voice heard at the expense of the encyclopaedic clarity of Wikipeidia. On a very fundamental level this assumes that there are those here exclusively to do bad, exactly what the assume-good-faith policy serves to prevent. I feel personally this view should never been taken to another editor (or group of editors) even if it is probably true. Most wikipedians simply want their voice to be heard, and for some minorities although it's done with the best of intentions, they often try to take a bigger slice of the pie that is Wikipeida than they are entitled to. That is not a reason to write something like this labelling them as an almost psychotic group bent on the disinformation of Wikipeidia.

You know what would make a better essay? – Why wikipedians should refrain from writing essays like this that are more likely to provoke a negative response from their readers than a “yeah I agree” consensus. This is a ‘’’dangerous’’’ piece of literature in my opinion and I would be much happier to see it gone. I will see how people respond to this as I am open to suggestion very much, perhaps I have misinterpreted it. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 01:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. This unfunny and disturbing page should be at somebody's userpage as a subpage (i.e. User:JzG/Rouge Admin), definitely not as a "Wikipedia:" page. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia is not a pie. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like this essay quite a lot, and find it useful, and would be strongly against its deletion.--Aldux 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thats a fair comment. But can you substantiate it with some reasons why you think it should stay. "I like it so it should stay" isn't really a reason for anything. As for it should stay because wikipedia is not a pie, I fear thats going to need some substantial explanation. Look at this please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, 'Wikipedia is not a source of personal essays'. I realise this is slightly different as its an essay about wikipedia, but hardly a useful one. Can you please substantiate in which way this 'essay' has 'helped' you? --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say I appreciate this essay first of all for its sense of humour, and at the same time terribly serious; you have to pass the time I do editing in Balkans-related articles to understand how many seem to believe that wikipedia exists to discover the ultimate truth, that is being hided by the Greek or Macedonian or Bulgarian or Romanian lobby, and hear very serious and good editors insist that there is among most admins active in the area a super powerful Macedonian lobby! And the reactions when you timidly ask a source! You'll promptly find guys calling you "fascist", "liar", "Albanophobe", "Anti-hellenic", "Slavomacedonian propagandist", alone in a field in which you are often the only non-Balkanic editor. But then, I'm a bit "rouge" myself, so I may be considered partisan ;-)--Aldux 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this page being deleted. How any page considered to be an "in joke" (or a joke of any type for that matter) and not meant to be understood can even exists on Wikipedia is beyond me. Roguegeek 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,lucky me. I clicked this from JzG's user page. If there's a vote someday,I say:delete,delete,delete. I see this as "an inner Wikipedia thing that must be for the adminds(nice)". --The jazz musician 05:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against deleting this. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it is obscure, or only an in-joke of a minority. I originally read this a long time ago when I was very new to Wikipedia, and it made sense instantly, and the way of presentation made it persuasive. I haven't bothered to register until recently, so I'm not part of any "cabal" either - it's hard to be an insider without an identity. The article is a cautionary reminder of how to not conduct yourself in the course of criticising others lest you make a fool of yourself, and as such behavior is commonly observed on the English Wikipedia (or the Internet in general), it does serve a purpose. It may be correct to "never give advice - a wise man won't need it, a fool won't heed it", but that's too cynical for me. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, what I say can not possibly be true, as the article is fairly new. Yet I clearly remember reading this (or something very similar to it) on Wikipedia. I guess this means that memory is not to be trusted overly much, and there are many ways to be a fool. This does not affect my opinion, though. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, this article must not be deleted; the usage of irony makes its point better than any serious words could ever do ... if you get it that is. Those that don't are hardly likely to stay reading it for long so nothing is lost. Abtract 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. Rouge admins might be a problem; rogue editors may well be a problem. Rouge admins, however, are the ultimate in policy wonkery. Fuck process* Guy 22:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism might...

Maybe one of you Red Admins (o! I love the Celestial Bureaucracy!) might want to check out the Economic totalitarianism page and the various AfDeletion made. Although they're have been several ones, the first one was closed on the (latter proven false) grounds that it was a copy-vio; the second one was arbitrarily "speedy kept", as the third one which overlapped with some Wikipedians arguing whether they should open another Afd (sic: it's not arguing about the article anymore, but about if we are entitled to demand its deletion!); and the fourth one, albeit groundbreaking (is that English??) arguments against its being kept (such as, research gives as much economic fish and economic something than "economic totalitarianism", is Google books are supposed to prove anything; or that one article can't be made by any random passage from any famous book - comment made by historian User:172, etc.) But a (Green?) Admin passing by closed the case as arbitrarily as it had been closed the preceding times, with the unashamed comment: "some strong points have been made in favor of this article" (mainly, that the term received several hits on Google, an argument ridiculized by the aboves examples by (wise) User:Trialanderrors). So, I know this might not be the best place to ask for it, but again, since we are dealing with totalitarianism, and you are Reds (even harbouring some kind of Red Brigades logo on your page), well I guess some of you might know what's the correct procedure to delete what the original author of the article (before it being entirely replaced by a quote from Friedman) himself qualified as his own research (WP:NOR and not copyvio, as was thought in the first Afd). Tazmaniacs 12:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A serious postscript?

Some of the talk at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10#Category:Rouge_admins and some of my private talk with Hoopydink, the nominator, leads me to believe that a serious postscript might be a good thing to have. This is a serious moral/philosophical notion (the idea that Doing the Right Thing ^TM trumps process wonkism, and always should, here) wrapped in humor. (as an aside, I take great pride in having been placed in this category...) Some suggest that it may be more palatable if the serious part is spelt out somewhere... What do folks think? I could take a crack at it (I have pretty extensive notes on what I want to convey based on IRC chats and so forth) if there was support. The flip side is that explaining jokes, even "ha ha only serious" ones sometimes destroys them. Maybe place the serious part in a show/hide??? ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's (or at least, the associated category is) the userbox-of-people-who-delete-userboxes, wrapped up in "insider humour" that's about as amusing as... actually, similes fail me, especially as some "wag" is certain to maintain that "I find <X> to be hilarious", for any simile object <X>. (Perhaps "a MOAB on the colocation facility" would be the closest thing to the wikiholic's consensus definition of "not in the least".) Yet another "screw process" essay is the last thing we need -- though I may be biased, since if I were screwing process, I'd delete it as it stands anyway as unencyclopaedic, divisive, elitist (and more especially elitist-wannabe) nonsense. Alai 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You put that very precisely, I think. -Splash - tk 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come, Lar. Serious, moral and philosophical? That's more of a joke than the page itself. If you are a proponent of Doing the Right Thing and Screwing Those With the Temerity to Disagree, then just get on with IARing and don't construct clownish edifices to give that course of action some kind of justification beyond "I want to and I'm right". You judge people's RfAs based on whether they add themselves to a page that declares itself to be joke; thus you don't think it to be a joke, and it can't have a serious bit that needs explaining. -Splash - tk 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wow. I judge people on how they construct their answers to the questions I ask, I have supported people who answer this both ways. The rest of the comments here by you and Alai, I can't even parse very well... this is a serious concept wrapped in humor. If the humor is getting in the way maybe it needs a footnote/postscript/explanation. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the comments to Lar's query reflect why an overhaul of the category page is needed, which is what he was trying to accomplish by starting this discussion. I don't think that Lar, or anyone (as far as I know) judge RfA candidates based upon their answer to an oft-used question about the candidate's position on the "Rouge Admins" and/or "Admins open to recall" categories. I think that the question simply gives the candidate another venue to voice his/her opinions and ideas about Wikipedia. This is beneficial not only to the candidate because he/she gets to "speak" to the participants, but also the participants themselves, as they get another look at the candidate. Also, the question is purely optional and if left unanswered, I can't see that being a big deal. I think Lar is trying to address some of the concerns that people might have about a potential elitist or "screwing process" nature, and it's rather inappropriate to mock him. With that, I believe that the category, as it stands, is inappropriate and needs to mention the seriousness that it attempts, but ultimately fails to convey. Any philosophies and aims should probably be bluntly stated, rather than implied, as it's obviously giving off the wrong impression. I'll note that I was the one who first opened the category for discussion, and I would be open to keeping the category if we all collaborate to ensure that the right message is being sent, which, based on some of these comments, is obviously being lost in the humour. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand. Your "idea that Doing the Right Thing ^TM trumps process wonkism, and always should" means that you mean that people should ignore all rules but that you feel slightly uncomfortable with membership of a Category:Wikipedia admins who ignore all rules (link shortly to be blue, no doubt). Making it funny makes it easier for you to go along with.

To rain further on the parade, the actual text of the page (which I just re-read to check) appears to be a veiled comment about dealing with POV-pushers who have a version of the truth they wish to see established on Wikipedia and which admins keep on preventing from appearing. That's a perfectly reasonable action, but it really doesn't stack up to making a category out of those who do as opposed, presumably, to those ethically-poor admins who don't routinely go looking for POV pushers to get rid of. -Splash - tk 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're reading way more into this than is intended. It's a reaction to the traditional cries of ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! from frustrated POV-pushers, nothing more. Guy 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely offensive logo

Using the modified red brigade image for this "rogue admins" essay as some kind of logo or insignia is highly offensive. The red brigade was a violent terrorist criminal group, would a wikipedia essay be allowed to use modified nazi or al-qaeda logos to identify a group of users? --NEMT 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was put up for deletion on commons: Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Rouge-Admin.png. As of right now I'm not sure there is a clear consensus either way but the image seems to be made up of elements that are a lot more neutral than say, a swastika. I'm not sure what an al-qaeda logo looks like so can't comment on that. (I'm also not sure that al-qaeda is held to be quite as universally bad). I think that if some really nifty logo were developed many of us are not necessarily wedded to this image and would not object to a change, but I do not see change as needful and said so on the deletion discussion... ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion was closed as a keep no consensus. In talking with folks, there was some discussion of an alternative image... I took a crack at one, it could use more work but it may be of interest. Comments welcomed. I did tis based onImage:Jolly-roger.svg and I have the original paint Shop Pro layered vector image. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all humor is at someone else's expense. It's nearly impossible to not offend someone and yet have a laugh. In fact, the very term "rouge admin" originated as a joke at someone else's expense. The creator of the image, Geogre, is one of the least likely people to offend anyone on this project. People need to keep things in perspective here. FeloniousMonk 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can't spell

Mossad Agent (talk · contribs) brang up a great point here. It's not spelled rouge, it's spelled rogue. Shouldn't we move this page to Wikipedia:Rogue admin? After all, not all admins are reddish-pink. —Whomp t/c 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's intentional. Don't know why. Carson 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is that many users when complaining seem to mispell the word. (I have seen it mispelled by complainants once or twice). JoshuaZ 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the time most complainants have reached this stage, they are pounding the keyboard so the typing goes a bit wonky. It's a deliberate point, and if you encounter sufficient numbers of these people you'll also start to realise Wikipedia is run by a shadowy, nefarous 'cabla'. --Davril2020 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler?

Someone really needs to post a spoiler for this page, 'cause I don't feel like reading it over and over or finding talk page diffs to figure out the entire "hidden" meaning here. Sincerely, ~~daft user~~ BigNate37_(T) 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rougelike! 1.5

I put out a new version of this little game, so now you can practice your rouge skills in a more realistic environment. Download, play and tell all your friends!

http://common-lisp.net/project/lifp/rouge.htm

-- Grue 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is nonsensical and badly written

I ask for its deletion. Bunch of uncoherent statements. 200.91.136.129 09:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoosh... Jefffire 09:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

Nice word huh? Know the relevant joke?

A patient bursts laughing outside his psychotherapist's office. When asked, he responds:
You call us nuts, but it is you who has a door-label admitting you are psycho-the-rapist!

In that sense, I think admin-is-trator fits perfectly in this essay! •NikoSilver• 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rouge-Admin.png nominated for deletion again

see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/2006/11/01... I have been working on a replacement image Image:Red1200px-Jolly-roger.png (as described above, it would get renamed and will be created as an SVG), and I guess I better work on it a bit harder. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there has been a change in how deletion requests are organised at Commons. The link given above in the first notice of deletion goes to the second discussion now... The first one can be found here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rouge-Admin.png or here [2] Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Commons censored now? I thought they hosted everything as long as it's free. Who cares for what purposes it is used? Grue 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Commons does have a project scope and all media uploaded there needs to fit within it, or it's subject to removal. The argument to be made is that since this is a free image and is used in an acceptable way in a WM project, it's within scope. The censorship or "anything goes" arguments would not be very convincing. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that we all switch to this image, which is still quite ROUGE but doesn't have the Red Brigades connotation. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest changes

Hoopydink is in my view, editing in good faith, although I'd rather he did come here to discuss instead of reverting. He tried a rouge deletion of the whole thing, which I reverted, and then discussed with him on IRC, saying if it needs fixing, he should fix it.

Personally I kinda like the many different slanderous group identifications, that's the point. As is the Official Cabal Decree. But maybe I'm a stick in the mud. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I agree with your two points. I hope I haven't given the impression that I think Hoopydink was not editing in good faith, I presume he was. However that doesn't stop me thinking his edits greatly reduced the ironic value of the page. Abtract 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singling out two minority religions (note that I use the term "minority" from a Western perspective) is rather inappropriate and blatantly offensive. Also, lots of humourous pages are tagged with the humour template, so I cannot see a reason to have it remain. Therefore, my next edit will be to revert the page back to my original tweaks. When editing this, or any page, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your own personal playground to single out religious groups. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again. The use of those terms is completely non-offensive, and the notion that people will take the page as a serious policy if we don't have an ugly banner with a cat laughing at our own joke is, well, laughable. Please stop edit warring. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I made the original change to reflect a more appropriate version - it's beyond me why you would want to remove the humour tag, as it is obviously humour. Furthermore, it's beyond me why you would want to lump people's religious faiths into largely derided political ideologies. It reeks of racism and also looks like admins on a power trip want to somehow preserve this page for some sort of self-legitimacy. This page and others like it should not be on Wikipedia, for it blurs the line of appropriate admin conduct and sends the wrong message. The underlying message is appropriate and valid, however the accompanying nonsense most certainly isn't hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fall under at least three of the labels in that sentence, and have no idea how anyone can take offense at it. The sentence is not poking fun at those groups, it is poking fun at those who claim that anyone who opposes their edits is a member of one or more of those groups. Please consider carefully before you throw around the 'racism' card - Zionism and Islamism are not racial groupings. As for the humour tag, the tag I replaced it with serves the purpose perfectly well without the problems I already mentioned. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 :::Reverted again. The use of those terms is completely non-offensive, and the notion that people will take the page as a serious policy if we don't have an ugly banner with a cat laughing at our own joke is, well, laughable. Please stop edit warring. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 ::::Hi!  I made the original change to reflect a more appropriate version - it's beyond me why you would want to remove the humour tag, as it is obviously humour.  Furthermore, it's beyond me why you would want to lump people's religious faiths into largely derided political ideologies.  It reeks of racism and also looks like admins on a power trip want to somehow preserve this page for some sort of self-legitimacy.  This page and others like it should not be on Wikipedia, for it blurs the line of appropriate admin conduct and sends the wrong message.  The underlying message is appropriate and valid, however the accompanying nonsense most certainly isn't [[User:Hoopydink/Esperanza|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''hoopydink'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Hoopydink|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
+:::::I fall under at least three of the labels in that sentence, and have no idea how anyone can take offense at it. The sentence is not poking fun at those groups, it is poking fun at those who claim that anyone who opposes their edits is a member of one or more of those groups. Please consider carefully before you throw around the 'racism' card - Zionism and Islamism are not racial groupings. As for the humour tag, the tag I replaced it with serves the purpose perfectly well without the problems I already mentioned. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)