Censorship: Difference between revisions
pipe trick bad idea, what links here can illustrate a lot more about term usage with some stable redirects, proposed deletions mostly just slows/calms things down
(anwsers (disagree, disagree) + format for readability) |
(pipe trick bad idea, what links here can illustrate a lot more about term usage with some stable redirects, proposed deletions mostly just slows/calms things down) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:You can use the pipe trick like everyone else does. having quite obscure redirects does is not useful, especially those that were just created out of artistic creativity or for the fun of making RC do fun things in the fashion of '''"Don't think of an gray elephant."''' --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:42, 24 Jul 2004 (EEST) | :You can use the pipe trick like everyone else does. having quite obscure redirects does is not useful, especially those that were just created out of artistic creativity or for the fun of making RC do fun things in the fashion of '''"Don't think of an gray elephant."''' --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:42, 24 Jul 2004 (EEST) | ||
::No, the [[pipe trick]] is a bad idea. We should always be trying to find the standard phrase that invokes the concept, not encouraging many anchor texts to proliferate each with some damn slant of their own. If a concept is very specific and so common and so recognized by multiple [[faction]]s, that it would normally get an article of its own, and has to be defined as a specific persistent term, then the [[redirect]] is the right way to deal with it. If the concept is unique and specific and common, it deserves its own slot in the name-space, if only to prevent unconnected articles - especially on things like [[there is no cabal]] where people can write a lot of nonsense if they don't understand the history. Making [[what links here]] work as a way to find all the various perspectives on the topic is also extremely efficient compared to having to look at all the articles to see who was using the damn [[pipe trick]]. | |||
Let's have a [[Consumerium:Proposed deletion]]s page. | Let's have a [[Consumerium:Proposed deletion]]s page. | ||
:So I invoke a [[sock puppet]] of mine and then agree to deletion as myself? Quite useless and a waste of time. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:42, 24 Jul 2004 (EEST) | :So I invoke a [[sock puppet]] of mine and then agree to deletion as myself? Quite useless and a waste of time. --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 15:42, 24 Jul 2004 (EEST) | ||
::The main point is to require some TIME to think about these things and discuss the underlying conflicts of views and [[faction]]s advancing them. NOtice [[trolls]] did NOT say to NAME the page "Votes for deletion" which is a kangaroo court, just "proposed deletions" to slow down whatever [[sysop vandalism]] might happen and provide a chance to fix articles in poor shape. | |||
<br /> (diff) (hist) . . Consudev:Deletion log; 20:32 . . Juxo (Talk) (deleted "Wikimedia Board of Trustees": biased, erronous, stupid off topic, contained personal insults) | <br /> (diff) (hist) . . Consudev:Deletion log; 20:32 . . Juxo (Talk) (deleted "Wikimedia Board of Trustees": biased, erronous, stupid off topic, contained personal insults) | ||