Consumerium development wiki

Editing Censorship

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
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)  
Please note that all contributions to Consumerium development wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later (see Consumerium:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)
Retrieved from "https://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/Censorship"