Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page scares me. >Radiant< 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
On it's starting comment, I think never accept stupidity when a conspiricy would suffice ;-)-- Ipatrol ( talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Of the stuff recently added, I kept the last bit, but the rest was way to specific and a bit off-topic (after all, the problem wasn't that you were being bold and not putting stuff through the committee). I think it was funnier before that was added. I have added more general FA and WP:CONT stuff instead. Of course, feel free to mercilessly edit or revert what I've done. (I may have to place a condescending warning template on your user talk page though...) -- Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I might well be biased (as I think the whole thing's a humour-free exercise in axe-grinding, and is probably going to have to be MFD'd in the medium-term), but I really don't see how assorted FA grievances are at all on topic at a supposed ironic counterpoint to WP:BOLD. Anyhoo, there really is no "FA process" beyond "what Mark says goes", so complaints about erroneous promotions, and subsequent re-demotions being done on "technicalities" are pretty wide of the target on accuracy grounds, even if they were on-topic. Alai 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just fixed the misspelled redirect hidden behind "underlying Bureaucracy". Sorry if I've spoiled intentional humor with that. -- Matthead Discuß 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone might like to write up Wikipedia:NOT_Much to tidy up some of the obviously inaccurate claims made by WP:NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's purposeful that this page does NOT follow the MOS? ie. the See also section is misplaced and its heading is miscapitalized. (See WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE, particularly the end part ;) -- œ ™ 05:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page scares me. >Radiant< 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
On it's starting comment, I think never accept stupidity when a conspiricy would suffice ;-)-- Ipatrol ( talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Of the stuff recently added, I kept the last bit, but the rest was way to specific and a bit off-topic (after all, the problem wasn't that you were being bold and not putting stuff through the committee). I think it was funnier before that was added. I have added more general FA and WP:CONT stuff instead. Of course, feel free to mercilessly edit or revert what I've done. (I may have to place a condescending warning template on your user talk page though...) -- Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I might well be biased (as I think the whole thing's a humour-free exercise in axe-grinding, and is probably going to have to be MFD'd in the medium-term), but I really don't see how assorted FA grievances are at all on topic at a supposed ironic counterpoint to WP:BOLD. Anyhoo, there really is no "FA process" beyond "what Mark says goes", so complaints about erroneous promotions, and subsequent re-demotions being done on "technicalities" are pretty wide of the target on accuracy grounds, even if they were on-topic. Alai 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just fixed the misspelled redirect hidden behind "underlying Bureaucracy". Sorry if I've spoiled intentional humor with that. -- Matthead Discuß 10:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate if someone might like to write up Wikipedia:NOT_Much to tidy up some of the obviously inaccurate claims made by WP:NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's purposeful that this page does NOT follow the MOS? ie. the See also section is misplaced and its heading is miscapitalized. (See WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE, particularly the end part ;) -- œ ™ 05:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)