Editing Talk:Essential projects

[[Troll]]s suggest we must get all friends of this planet or even just [[some body]] that lives on it, working on these projects.  If they already work on something closely related, we must convince them to work on these aspects specifically, since they are the key to getting what we need done, done, in time.

There is little time left.  The [[w:ape genocide]] is proceeding.  When their culture is gone, we too will go.  We cannot save ours[[House elf|elves]] without them.

:my genocide is the next one planned ? Perhaps rightly so...:-(

::If "rightly" is defined by say Wikipedians, that is certainly so.

-------------

[[User:Angela]]'s claim not to have blocked the 142 IPs on the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] is a pretty shallow one.  It depends on whether you claim that the person who types in the IP number or the person with sysop status who asks for it to be done (say because of a technical reason or a desire to evade their own rightful responsibility) is the "one who did it".

Angela asked [[w:User:Cyan]] to do it.  He said he would, or someone would, when the power to do so existed.  That seemed to satisfy her.  

She had ambitions to delete a vast number of articles with proposed policy and design material, and a good deal more that were directed towards the POV of a translator or simple English user struggling on his or her own to understand the English culture, not just language.  For instance She deleted the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Readings Simple English Readings] out of process although they were certainly neutral.  

One can't claim something is "in process" if the new software's been in place barely a month... there's not enough people there to put ANYTHING in process - certainly not mass deletes.  But anyway, her motives are clear:  she could not take control of that project and mold it to her own objective (seemingly, a children's encyclopedia) without destroying that material which pointed out the glaring differences between such a child-oriented project and one that adults could use to actually comprehend a new culture.  So she begged for it to be done by others so you would not be blamed. 

In any case, she is now a sysop there, and you haven't UNblocked that range.  So she's responsible, or rather, irresponsible, for it becoming sadly one of the [[enemy projects]] where Consumerium contributors should be warned against wasting their time.  If anyone was blocked from editing legitimate material, if anything, the responsible party has a responsibility to work with it, find other champions for it, etc., to prove they were neutral on the material itself, and that it was not the material that led to the censorship.

But in fact, Angela's behavior proves the opposite, and has nothing to do with her words.  She is directly and provably responsible for the block, we are quite sure, and no doubt you will now get [[User_talk:Cyan]] deleted, just as you deleted the Simple talk which proved this.  

By contrast we never delete any talk.  Our opinion, and word, is worth more than yours, as it stands up to scrutiny.  That's all there is to it.  Our track record is quite consistent.  And so is hers:  she blocked by whining using others to do the actual block (or rather, waited until a broader block by Tim Starling - a developer with even MORE technological power), and then taking the power, and then deleting the material before anyone else could seriously review it.  That is if anything more of a power grab than a temporary block. 

Such behaviour is not excusable in any of our [[essential projects]] which must stick to their own mandates, at least, so that we know that they aren't lying to us when we use their material in ours.  Integrity is a non-negotiable part of an essential project.