![]() | Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Great essay! Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Quality stuff, and right on the money. -- Stormie 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's so true. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I never knew Wikipedia did humour. This is kind of weird, actually! Dixon H. ( talk) 03:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems to fit the criteria... -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this diff be removed from the essay. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Is Fun, this is not example of "spam".
I am not associated with MathIsFun (in fact, I am from a different country; check my IP, if you wish). But, I am concerned that this might end up being an attack page.
It is not appropriate to cite an active editor's statement for keeping an article as example of spam, especially when the article survived an AfD. Why accuse a resepectable editor of being a spammer? There are many better examples that can be included here. 202.54.176.51 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to transclude {{
humor}}
on here, but too bad it says humor can't serve a serious purpose - when obviously you are trying to help these poor lost souls.
Psu256 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see a serious weakness in this essay. Policies change. Good faith contributors have an obligation to comply with the project's policies, guidelines and long established conventions. But policies do change, and contributors who have concerns with a policy do have policy compliant choices as to how work towards changing the policies they disagree with.
I'd hate to see a sincere contributor, trying to work towards a change in policy, have their efforts mocked by being told they are at stage three of WP:Grief (ie "negotiation") and they should just go away. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen regular dditors move through these stages. What is particularly painful is the, "It's such a loss to Wikipedia that I will not be able to write all of the articles I had planned to contribute. I believed in Wikipedia when I started editing but now I see it is just a game for power-mad, small-minded people."
This should be marked as the Stages of Leaving Wikipedia, spammers and editors alike.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I posted at User talk:TheVivid, but the user did not take my advice. Bearian ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Great essay! Jehochman ( talk/ contrib) 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Quality stuff, and right on the money. -- Stormie 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's so true. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I never knew Wikipedia did humour. This is kind of weird, actually! Dixon H. ( talk) 03:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems to fit the criteria... -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this diff be removed from the essay. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Is Fun, this is not example of "spam".
I am not associated with MathIsFun (in fact, I am from a different country; check my IP, if you wish). But, I am concerned that this might end up being an attack page.
It is not appropriate to cite an active editor's statement for keeping an article as example of spam, especially when the article survived an AfD. Why accuse a resepectable editor of being a spammer? There are many better examples that can be included here. 202.54.176.51 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was tempted to transclude {{
humor}}
on here, but too bad it says humor can't serve a serious purpose - when obviously you are trying to help these poor lost souls.
Psu256 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see a serious weakness in this essay. Policies change. Good faith contributors have an obligation to comply with the project's policies, guidelines and long established conventions. But policies do change, and contributors who have concerns with a policy do have policy compliant choices as to how work towards changing the policies they disagree with.
I'd hate to see a sincere contributor, trying to work towards a change in policy, have their efforts mocked by being told they are at stage three of WP:Grief (ie "negotiation") and they should just go away. Geo Swan ( talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen regular dditors move through these stages. What is particularly painful is the, "It's such a loss to Wikipedia that I will not be able to write all of the articles I had planned to contribute. I believed in Wikipedia when I started editing but now I see it is just a game for power-mad, small-minded people."
This should be marked as the Stages of Leaving Wikipedia, spammers and editors alike.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I posted at User talk:TheVivid, but the user did not take my advice. Bearian ( talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)