User talk:Koavf: Difference between revisions

User talk:Koavf (edit)

Revision as of 00:59, 7 January 2015

3,030 bytes added , 7 January 2015

→‎BoyWiki: fascinating. Nathan Larson, the radical inclusionist, does not want the page undeleted, because he'd lose a bit. Wow!

Abd

331

edits

@@ Line 306: / Line 306: @@
 ::For email, I would prefer a full XML export with page history, because it can be relevant. Thanks. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 :::Both Jason and Arcane approved the deletion as well. Noindex isn't going to achieve the goal that Koavf was concerned about, which was eliminating the reason for RationalWiki users to badmouth WikiIndex. The page will still be visible to RationalWikians, and therefore they'll still have something to say about it. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
+::::Fascinating. Elsewhere in the wikisphere, Leucosticte has complained about the deletion as one more proof of how abusive so many wikis are. He made a point to tell the major active user about the deletion here. Here, he complained about it and about the practice that deleted it. He then suggested a bet. [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Prohibited_content&diff=186950&oldid=186949][http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Prohibited_content&diff=next&oldid=186969] I declined to bet. However, I had been thinking of seeing if the page could be restored. That would start by looking at it. Nathan doesn't want the page restored, he's much happier as the outcast, the champion of the rejected scapegoats. (And he's busy attempting to stir them up.) He doesn't want consensus on the matter, he wants dispute, which is why he's telling you, now, that two other sysops "approved" the deletion.
+::::I asked you, Koavf, for a very simple reason: wiki tradition: you deleted, so I asked you. You accepted, but have not undeleted yet. No rush. It was just a request. I can ask someone else or create a discussion, and I can wait. It is *always* less disruptive to ask a deleting sysop to undelete, first, and I did this on Wikipedia, saving articles that way. The more disruptive way on Wikipedia is to start a Deletion Review, which pulls every deletionist or inclusionist troll out of the woodwork. If there is a good reason for undeletion, most admins will look at it. Deleting with blanking is a way to find a temporary consensus, here, and then to allow deeper consideration. On Wikipedia with an article, I might request it be restored to my user space, I did that many times. However, discussing whether or not BoyWiki is offensive is very likely itself to create disruption, I've seen this kind of discussion explode many times. Frankly, I think we should avoid the whole problem by setting guidelines, which is happening with [[WikiIndex:Prohibited content]]. In my view, Boywiki does not meet the guidelines for prohibition, ''except as Leuscosticte attempted to write them.'' He's become entirely transparent. His motives I can guess, but, in the end, he knows himself best.
+::::BoyWiki has been around a long time. I wanted to see the history of the page. All this controversy around listing wikis started with Leucosticte.
+::::The argument about RationalWiki takes the cake. The complaints from RationalWiki were not about that page, they were about Leucosticte. [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiIndex&oldid=1337410 Here] is the page. They are ''not'' going to complain if the BoyWiki page is restored and blanked. They are not complete idiots. By the way, Leucosticte claims they ban anyone who disagrees with them. Huh! I'm still a sysop there. I found it useless, but I an ''not'' banned. I got no flack for that commentary, which was very mild by RatWiki standards. RatWiki ''runs'' on flames. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)