Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::I'm not sure what you're implying with the IRC comment, so I'll just skip it. It doesn't matter who would have agreed with you but didn't. The consensus was keep. The discussion at ANI was headed for keep. Whether or not these cabals should have been deleted is not the issue. The issue is the manner in which it was done. The minority does not get to cite IAR and win. That said, Equazcion, you're not completely right. She ignored the ] which is, in fact, a policy. ''']''']''']''' 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure what you're implying with the IRC comment, so I'll just skip it. It doesn't matter who would have agreed with you but didn't. The consensus was keep. The discussion at ANI was headed for keep. Whether or not these cabals should have been deleted is not the issue. The issue is the manner in which it was done. The minority does not get to cite IAR and win. That said, Equazcion, you're not completely right. She ignored the ] which is, in fact, a policy. ''']''']''']''' 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Eh, details. We might have a policy that says we should do what most people agree to do in a discussion about an issue, but I call that common sense. If you ignore that discussion, you're ignoring people; policies aren't as important. The people were deciding on something, someone didn't like the decision they were arriving at, and decided to act on their own opinion instead. It was wrong no matter how you slice it. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''01:26, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)''</small>
::::::::Eh, details. We might have a policy that says we should do what most people agree to do in a discussion about an issue, but I call that common sense. If you ignore that discussion, you're ignoring people; policies aren't as important. The people were deciding on something, someone didn't like the decision they were arriving at, and decided to act on their own opinion instead. It was wrong no matter how you slice it. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''01:26, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)''</small>
:::::::::(after ecXx) If it was wrong, then no problem! Restore the page as "improper interpretation of IAR" or, to avoid perception of wheel-warring, take to DRV. What's the problem? Someone did something and you're unhappy about the action, but you're reluctant to counter the action, for reasons you're unable to formulate, other than "there's no rule sez you can do that!" - but so what? Do you think those pages should be in the cyclo? Then do it, advance your reasons and let the cards play.
:::::::::If the admin was that wrong in applying IAR, then register your objections. If it's bad enough, go up the ladder.
:::::::::Lara, is what I meant. ] knows all! :) ] (]) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I don't understand why Keilana feels that it's okay to delete one cabal and not another. Who is fit to judge this? Not me. I also think the decision to delete was much more calculated. Deleting the BRC for example, and citing IAR is the same as doing it to any other cabal, but for some odd reason, the BRC was intact! Could it be that it would have upset certain members of the wiki, as opposed to deleting cabals that consist of new users? Talk about CREEPy - one admin feeling fit enough to judge which cabals should go and which should stay - that's beyond bold, that's a complex. ] ] 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I don't understand why Keilana feels that it's okay to delete one cabal and not another. Who is fit to judge this? Not me. I also think the decision to delete was much more calculated. Deleting the BRC for example, and citing IAR is the same as doing it to any other cabal, but for some odd reason, the BRC was intact! Could it be that it would have upset certain members of the wiki, as opposed to deleting cabals that consist of new users? Talk about CREEPy - one admin feeling fit enough to judge which cabals should go and which should stay - that's beyond bold, that's a complex. ] ] 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:FWIW, I didn't delete the BRC because its members were actually productive, and not spending 95% of their wiki-time messing with it. I've also started a deletion review on the matter, it's what's needed now. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:FWIW, I didn't delete the BRC because its members were actually productive, and not spending 95% of their wiki-time messing with it. I've also started a deletion review on the matter, it's what's needed now. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. If I've left you a message, you can reply there or here. If you chose to reply here, I will respond here.
If there is a conversation taking place somewhere, keep it there. It doesn't need to also take place on my talk page. Such discussions will be removed.
If you are pissed off at something I've done, assume good faith. Most likely, whatever I did was with the best of intentions. If you decide to pitch a fit on my talk page anyway, note that I endorse WP:DGAF.
O, hai, Jack Merridew, is that you?
Why are you upset? What did I do?
Was it something I said, or something I did?
Was a comment of mine a way to offend?
Was it deletions or blocks?
Did I warn one of your socks?
Upsetting you was not my intention,
But while you're here I might as well mention;
And I hope this isn't too crass,
But get off my page, you look like an ass.
-- :D Lara❤Love19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's getting more fun... it's actually getting redundant. I mean, I write, ya know? But I don't write the same shit over and over again. Srsly. Can I get a sequel or something? Like, it should follow up with how the mentally challenged attacker managed to give me teh gonosyphilaids with his laughably small pecker.
Okay, so let's just review this cinematic masterpiece. A man so ugly he hides his face knocks on my door. I, in my true altruistic fashion, invite the fugly little bastard in. I ask how his pathetic day has gone, as if I care. The details are so painfully boring that the whole scene is edited out and suddenly we're in a bar. The way it's worded, he's slightly intoxicated when he drops the roofies in my drink. Considering I don't drink and his dumb drunk ass can probably barely string a full sentence together, I'm obviously not drinking it. All becomes a blur in his God-smitten head, I just play along. The writer was apparently too unimaginative to layout the scene for the rape, so we're anywhere from a dark alley to his cockroach infested digs. We'll go with the alley. I struggle to get away, using my face only, apparently. I mean, that's normal, right? Yea. So, that doesn't work. Shocker. Then he tears my clothes off; some time passes, during which I can only assume he's waiting for the Viagra to kick in; then he drops his own clothes and inserts his "bare erect PENIS" into my rectum (damn near killed 'em), without lubrication. I can only assume "penis" is in all CAPS as a form of overcompensation; noted. I struggle for a moment, but eventually concede. Probably because I've realized I can barely feel it, so I might as well wait it out... maybe try to push out some poop for shits and giggles... yea, that was a pun. Anyway, so he gets off and that's it. What a lame ending. I mean, srsly. It's literally the lamest scat rape porn ever, ltrly... and anyone who knows me knows I've read/watched a lot of scat rape porn. Lara❤Love22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the image's caption in the article is the link to the 3D image (the red and blue glasses), and that now points to the deleted image page on wikipedia. That's the link that should be fixed to point to the correct commons page. Zocky | picture popups00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see what you mean. These indeed seem to be two identical images. But that's not how it's supposed to be. The other images on the page are normal 2D photos, and the 3D links in the captions link to 3D images, which are visibly different. Some of these images have been deleted, presumably because they're available on commons, but the links are now broken. I don't think you've deleted any of those, but I guess the lesson is, when deleting images, check also "what links here", not just "file links". Zocky | picture popups00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I always correct any usages before I delete. The issue here is that the 2d image is actually 3d. I don't know if it's a metter of a new 3d version being uploaded over the original 2d or if it was originally uploaded as 3d but not titled accordingly. Regardless, it was found and tagged as a duplicate and then deleted. If there's a 2d image found in the upload history of the image currently being used in the article, then you can revert back to that one and let me know and I'll restore the 3d image. Lara❤Love16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of a simple misunderstanding as demonstrated below. Please do not modify it.
I don't really care about the discussion anymore, as the deletion failed, but you really shouldn't continue editing an archived and protected discussion just so you can get the last word in. I just thought you should know that. Equazcion•✗/C •00:26, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I didn't realize it. Between puking and shitting, I guess the color didn't register. I'm still right, tho. Lara❤Love01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't edit and archived discussion. Otherwise, when in Rome... Besides which it wasn't just archived, it was protected. Equazcion•✗/C •02:13, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I accept that it was an accident, but I'd like to recommend that you self-revert it. Post-close comments are, by convention, removed, and given that the page is protected (presumably to prevent people from adding post-close comments), it would require an admin (such as yourself) to remove it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Misplaced Pages community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You just made my day, what can I say? And here's what I found out from the talk page of this guy User talk:218.186.9.4... BAN these persistent vandalizing bastards, don't go soft on them. Cheers.--Dave1185 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thinking one race is superior to another is racist. That is not exactly true. Thinking all people one race is bad, a problem is racist. Thinking it is superior could be refering to a large variety of things, not necessarily pure racism, so I think my edit was legit. (Not to mention I can't seem to find the source to verify it actually says it is a "racist ideology") Considering how many people have brought this to your attention through edits and talk page posts Like who? A few made personal attacks against me, another just wanted standardization, and now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I did have a consensus for my edit. It appears to me that you are not capable of editing articles which fall into the category of race with a neutral point of view. That is your opinion, and I don't know what you base it on, nor do I know why you suddenly come out of the blue and seem to have a problem with me, considering I don't think I have ever had contact with you before now. YahelGuhan05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Um Yahel. Our own Misplaced Pages article on racism states racism as members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. So your entire view of racism is incorrect, which is why you fail to edit these articles with impartial eyes. Lara doesn't have any issue with you - I asked her to help me review your behavior. the_undertow05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, your edit was not legit. In that your POV and bias is displayed so blatantly through your edits, it is clear that you do not have the ability to constructively edit these various race articles. Now no long-standing editor but me seems to be disputing it on that page, so I think I have a consensus for my edit. You do not have consensus. I, a long-standing editor (not that my time here is relevant) am disputing your edit. There is a lengthy consensus on the talk page of the article which specifically addresses this very change you're making. So, in that, you are editing against the established consensus. Considering consensus can change, you need to discuss your thoughts on the talk page in order to attempt to achieve that. Merely making the change against consensus and hoping no one notices or bothers to comment is not acceptable. Additionally, your edit in this article and your edit on White supremacy are contradictory to one another. Both are racist ideologies and both should word it as such. Lara❤Love16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
IAR/Cabals/etc.
I appreciate the clarification. IMO it wasn't stupid, but we all are entitled to our opinions. Best, Keilana| 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems clear in that you did it that you didn't consider it a stupid action. The problem is that you still don't see the issue with it. Lara❤Love00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Very true. What do you consider as the issue? There seems to be a general consensus that it was out-of-process but they shouldn't be restored, therefore it was justified. Keilana| 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is you did what you wanted despite being in the minority. You deliberately undermined our MFD process, disrespected not only the hosts of the cabals but all those who voted keep, and ignored a building consensus on ANI that you didn't agree with. It was completely ridiculous. I don't agree that all of the cabals should have necessarily been deleted. But those that should have deserved to be taken to MFD individually. Your utter disregard for some many aspects of Misplaced Pages is shameful in my eyes. Lara❤Love00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. There is one thing, though: the existence of the cabals was bad for the encyclopedia. They were heavily encouraging social networking, and they were being edited to the exclusion of anything having to do with the project. I can understand the existence of the BRC, though it's not my cup of tea, people who are constructive contributors should be able to have a bit of fun. Keilana| 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but... Keilana, you're just stating your opinion as well, which is what you're supposed to do at ANI, MfD, etc. What you did was ignore everyone else in favor of your opinion, rather than contributing to an ongoing discussion. That's never good. IAR is meant for situations where a policy seems to contradict what everyone feels is the right thing to do in a given situation. That's not what happened here. You ignored a discussion and consensus, not a policy. It's Ignore All Rules, not Ignore All People. Equazcion•✗/C •01:07, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
If butting in is apropos, Keilana didn't ignore all people, there were other people like me, little people, who aren't all that happy with the idea of exclusionist cabals that converse among themselves (including on IRC, hint, hint) and run against the flat, open space that is Misplaced Pages - who didn't happen to pipe up at the time. We should all be together and equal in this, isn't that what we're all striving for? Franamax (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We are. That's what discussions are for. Keilana acted despite the ongoing discussion. Just because some people agreed with her doesn't give her license to act outside a process or despite an ongoing discussion. Equazcion•✗/C •01:16, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're implying with the IRC comment, so I'll just skip it. It doesn't matter who would have agreed with you but didn't. The consensus was keep. The discussion at ANI was headed for keep. Whether or not these cabals should have been deleted is not the issue. The issue is the manner in which it was done. The minority does not get to cite IAR and win. That said, Equazcion, you're not completely right. She ignored the WP:CONSENSUS which is, in fact, a policy. Lara❤Love01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, details. We might have a policy that says we should do what most people agree to do in a discussion about an issue, but I call that common sense. If you ignore that discussion, you're ignoring people; policies aren't as important. The people were deciding on something, someone didn't like the decision they were arriving at, and decided to act on their own opinion instead. It was wrong no matter how you slice it. Equazcion•✗/C •01:26, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)
(after ecXx) If it was wrong, then no problem! Restore the page as "improper interpretation of IAR" or, to avoid perception of wheel-warring, take to DRV. What's the problem? Someone did something and you're unhappy about the action, but you're reluctant to counter the action, for reasons you're unable to formulate, other than "there's no rule sez you can do that!" - but so what? Do you think those pages should be in the cyclo? Then do it, advance your reasons and let the cards play.
If the admin was that wrong in applying IAR, then register your objections. If it's bad enough, go up the ladder.
(undent) I don't understand why Keilana feels that it's okay to delete one cabal and not another. Who is fit to judge this? Not me. I also think the decision to delete was much more calculated. Deleting the BRC for example, and citing IAR is the same as doing it to any other cabal, but for some odd reason, the BRC was intact! Could it be that it would have upset certain members of the wiki, as opposed to deleting cabals that consist of new users? Talk about CREEPy - one admin feeling fit enough to judge which cabals should go and which should stay - that's beyond bold, that's a complex. the_undertow01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I didn't delete the BRC because its members were actually productive, and not spending 95% of their wiki-time messing with it. I've also started a deletion review on the matter, it's what's needed now. Keilana| 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
