Talk:Nemo bis

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search

Explain what kind of can of worms you refer to, and why it is bad. If they were gummy worms, I'd definitely want to open that can up, and probably devour all of them in one sitting. True, it might cause a stomachache, but it still passes my cost-benefit analysis. Leucosticte (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So, for what are you fishing, Nathan? What's the purpose of this and other similar pages? As usual, you think only of your own goals, and you don't mind the stomach-ache, so addicted are you to what happens from your fishing expeditions, that provide "meaning" for your life. ("Fishing" for certain responses is called "trolling.")
"Can of worms" refers to a complex situation that can take up the time of users and administrators, without serving the purposes of the wiki. Sure, if you are fishing, and you open your tin of meat, and find it full of worms, you could use those worms for fishing. More likely, though, you are disappointed, disgusted, and left hungry and dissatisfied, and maybe angry at whoever sold you that can. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Fishing can be used in a positive sense, too. If I catch fish, it's only because I love them, and want them to be happy, or at least not unhappy. It must be very dreary swimming around all the time, never accomplishing much; how much better if a win-win scenario can be arrived at, by which I get to eat a nice McDonald's meal #9, or its functional equivalent, while the fish is put out of its misery. It need not leave me unsatisfied.
Even the Bible uses "fishing" in a positive way. Was Jesus a troll? Maybe. He sure went around provoking people to want to crucify him, didn't he? And he got what he wanted. He even pointed out that it was totally avoidable, but let it happen anyway.
What kind of articles are we supposed to have about wiki people, anyway? Point to a model article of that type that would be worthy of featured status, if we had such a thing. Leucosticte (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
What you do, Nathan, is argue forever, if it's permitted. You just created articles on this user and on MZMcBride. The latter's connection with you is obvious, he just blocked you on MetaWiki. Nemo bis is related to that case, see [1]. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
So what? What does it matter? You seem to constantly engage in appeals to motive, which isn't good. In fact, it distracts from the relevant issues at hand. Leucosticte (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Motives matter. Motives create patterns of behavior. Motives cherry-pick evidence. Motives selectively create articles. Unrecognized motives can wreck our lives and our communities. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
So, delete stuff if you think the motive was bad, rather than because the article itself meets certain criteria? Leucosticte (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Close, but not exactly. By default, delete stuff that is part of a pattern of behavior motivated by harm or damage, allow review of such stuff if content is in line with site mission. You raise boundary issues, and attempt to propose absolute standards, usually on the line of Whatever I Want Is Allowed and You Can't Do Anything About It But Go Away.
Wikipedia generally made a decision on this issue. Some administrators sometimes don't get it, but, by policy, edits of blocked/banned users can be reverted on sight, but any other editor may bring them back in. Articles created by such editors (after block/ban) may be speedy deleted. However, someone else may create a page with the same content, if the content meets standards. Here, the standards are not clear. You attempt to translate that to The Usual. I.e, Whatever I Want Is Allowed.... --Abd (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder, Nathan, if you have considered notifying the users whose articles you created that an article has been created here. If they come here and say the article is just fine, thank you very much, it might be okay. It might still not be okay. Notability is still a real issue, if you would read those old discussions for more than arguments to cherry-pick. --Abd (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

wikiquote:Talk:George_Orwell#Attribution.3F_-_.22Journalism_is_printing_something....22 So, is this to be a wiki of journalism/news or advertising/public relations? Leucosticte (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)