Wikipedia talk:Be Afraid

This page scares me. >Radiant< 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On it's starting comment, I think never accept stupidity when a conspiricy would suffice ;-)--Ipatrol (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FAR stuff

Of the stuff recently added, I kept the last bit, but the rest was way to specific and a bit off-topic (after all, the problem wasn't that you were being bold and not putting stuff through the committee). I think it was funnier before that was added. I have added more general FA and WP:CONT stuff instead. Of course, feel free to mercilessly edit or revert what I've done. (I may have to place a condescending warning template on your user talk page though...) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abu-Fool. I added some more stuff and generalized the Meet the [[FAckers]] section a bit. I also added some footnotes to better explain my thinking on the subject :) SqlPac 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I might well be biased (as I think the whole thing's a humour-free exercise in axe-grinding, and is probably going to have to be MFD'd in the medium-term), but I really don't see how assorted FA grievances are at all on topic at a supposed ironic counterpoint to WP:BOLD. Anyhoo, there really is no "FA process" beyond "what Mark says goes", so complaints about erroneous promotions, and subsequent re-demotions being done on "technicalities" are pretty wide of the target on accuracy grounds, even if they were on-topic. Alai 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're under the assumption that there is a target. SqlPac 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming the target was "the truth of the matter". (I thought that "wide of the mark" was straying too far into unintended bad pun territory.) But please keep me up to speed on that. Alai 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"The truth of the matter" is that Wikipedia is something ("not a bureaucracy" of course), but it is composed of hundreds of micro-bureaucracies that bite you in the rear end every time you try to do something useful on here. I suppose it's similar to Yum! Brands not being in the fast-food business. Yeah they own KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's, and A&W. But Yum! Brands technically doesn't sell any food. Fascinating. SqlPac 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable precis of your previously-stated opinion, but isn't really responsive to either of my points. Alai 00:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Simplify, simplify, simplify. OK, here goes:

...complaints about erroneous promotions, and subsequent re-demotions being done on "technicalities" are pretty wide of the target on accuracy grounds...

They are indeed wide of the target, but only because your stated target is not the target I am aiming at. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that I would not hit your target, being as how I wasn't particularly aiming in that general direction at all.

I was assuming the target was "the truth of the matter".

Nope, like Wikipedia I could care less about "the truth of the matter". I'm interested only in "verifiable facts" which can be turned into reality with a vote by some micro-bureaucracy somewhere. I think that answers your points, let me know if it didn't. Thanks. SqlPac 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

underlying Bureaucracy

I've just fixed the misspelled redirect hidden behind "underlying Bureaucracy". Sorry if I've spoiled intentional humor with that. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Much

I would appreciate if someone might like to write up Wikipedia:NOT_Much to tidy up some of the obviously inaccurate claims made by WP:NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not afraid

I'm guessing it's purposeful that this page does NOT follow the MOS? ie. the See also section is misplaced and its heading is miscapitalized. (See WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE, particularly the end part ;) -- œ^™ 05:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)