| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Search user languages |
|
Box edit
Oh, Oh, Oh, I have seen this tag and its variants too many times on Wikipedia. If in combination with a "lack of notability" assertation, it makes me sigh.
 | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Egalitarian consensus seeking Wikipedia community or über-ayatollah admins elevated above the crowd ? edit
- Absolutely incredible AN/I discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Unitanode and good hand/bad hand -- notice in particular the prompt and repeated attempts to "archieve" the case as "resolved", when the case is anything but resolved.
- Quoting Arnaud Amalric, - Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
- and on the mindset and qualites of some of our leaders (sigh)
Scott MacDonald has just redacted his own statement. I desire to preserve it, since it shows with brilliant sincerity and clarity what are the real feelings and thoughts of such admins:
Hm, I summarise the complaints: if admins will just play by the rules of consensus, discussion, and take no disruptive unilateral action, then the community consensus will deal with the BLP issues this project faces. That's so ridiculous it is funny. Hasn't happened in my 4 years of caring, and won't happen anytime soon.
This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. No one should abide by "consensus" when consensus has time and time again shown itself to be as mature as a baby on acid. And this case? Either it will be dismissed or it will strain on the wikilawyering gnats of who blocked whom, and what was out of process - while swallowing every available camel and (to mix metaphors) elephant in the room. Arbcom may "feel the BLP pain" but they won't actually do anything useful.
Actually, even speedy deleting all unreferenced BLPs won't make all that much difference. But the community will not even go that far. Until it starts to do things like this, it will not even begin to tackle the real problem - which is that current structures can only realistically maintain the 20% of most notable BLPs to an acceptable quality wrt to libel threats.
If the community believes it is acceptable to keep wholy unreferenced articles about living people around for THREE YEARS (and that's what I was deleting) then sod the community.
- Source: [1] 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Coffee in [3]
Links edit
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark/Cleanup listing
- Current BLP article backlog: 951 articles. 40,929 - 40,910 - 40,748 - 40,643
- Library of Congress online catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov -- British Library catalog at http://catalogue.bl.uk/
- Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup
- /Tools
- /Sandbox
- /Gems
- /BLP madness
Gems edit
<gallery> File:Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003.gif|Apparent retrograde motion of Mars Image:Sucrose.gif|Sucrose animation File:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg|Aceria anthocoptes, a mite File:Lunar libration with phase Oct 2007.gif|Lunar libration File:Star-sizes.jpg|Relative astronomical orders of magnitude File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg|A (turbulent) diffusion flame File:A Danish Perspective.jpg|Denmark