Don't put these stupid tags on articles that are under development, and which will be well-referenced, and which are important in relation to the Western philosophical tradition. Stick to garage bands or something. Peter Damian (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles"

I am very quickly losing my rag on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/The Usual Hystery, Re*Peating

Then Y R U Still Wriding It!?

Jon

I am very quickly losing my rag on this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

I think it's funny that the AFD nominator has "I am tired of the ongoing levels of drama on Wikipedia" on his User page.

Peter, instead of working to develop new content amidst such a hostile environment, why don't you author your articles on some other, more inviting wiki forum, release it under the terms of the GFDL, then copy it wholesale into Wikipedia, so that it looks completely polished from the get-go?

Then, your new work also has the advantage of multiple Google hits, instead of just one.

I think it's funny that the AFD nominator has "I am tired of the ongoing levels of drama on Wikipedia" on his User page.

Peter, instead of working to develop new content amidst such a hostile environment, why don't you author your articles on some other, more inviting wiki forum, release it under the terms of the GFDL, then copy it wholesale into Wikipedia, so that it looks completely polished from the get-go?

Then, your new work also has the advantage of multiple Google hits, instead of just one.

Why is it OK for these dicks to leave that rude 'stop' hand sign on your talk page, but not OK to complain about it? (Jon Awbrey need not reply).

Now blanked talk page. Time for Wikipedia rehab. I suggested the idea some time ago. When you go on a binge, decent people like friends and family send you off to some clinic where you can be talked out of your addiction in reasonable ways. Someone please help.

Affectionately known as Rosie Palm.

Wiki-Wankers like her a lot, she's all they got.

Jon

Just do what I do. Develop all the new stuff in a user space sandbox page, then just hit the Move button. Keeps the RC nitwits out of it.

He is an expert in AFD and I think he has an excellent grasp of deletion and other policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...dminship/Stifle

Amazingly, "Stifle" was nominated for and passed adminship as an expert on deletion:

One of the projects which will be supported with the Sloan grant is a software feature called Flagged Revisions, which will allow experienced editors to publicly and visibly grade the quality status of articles -- in effect, functioning as a kind of "nutrition labeling" for Wikipedia content. In coming years, Wikimedia also plans to significantly expand outreach events such as Wikipedia Academy, designed to increase Wikipedia's quality by teaching academics, older people, and other targeted groups how to contribute. Another goal is the distribution of educational content from Wikipedia and its sister projects in non-web-based formats such as DVDs and books, to reach people who are not online.

I think #1 priority for the coming months is to discover who in the Sloan Foundation is responsible for overseeing this whopping great grant. I have more than enough material now to turn a few heads ...

P.S. I see you have "permanently" retired from Wikipedia, too, Peter. You know I like you and all, but I give your retirement until, ohhh... October 4th.

I am very quickly losing my rag on this one

Why October 4th?

Peter, instead of working to develop new content amidst such a hostile environment, why don't you author your articles on some other, more inviting wiki forum, release it under the terms of the GFDL, then copy it wholesale into Wikipedia, so that it looks completely polished from the get-go?

Good idea. I invite you to wikinfo.org, where according to Greg at least one admin is "the hottest, sauciest wiki-editor the world has ever known".

Thanks, Greg, it's nice to be e-preciatied.

Peter Noster could also draft yet another re*daction of his Don't Be A Mirabile Dictum at Google's Knol, where he would have his druthers of Collaboration Models and Cremative Come-Ons Licenses.

Or he could just keep on whining e-round in circles 4ever, until Miltown & Moulton Inc. dedicates an opera to him, say, Peter Is The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Jon

Why compost opera after Jon has shown how mulch communal-cation decay is easily ach-leaved with Ψ-ka-Δ-ics, font-ass-tics, and some stearing manure??

Miltown

P.S. Try size 11 next time.
Jon

* Wikipedia needs lots of people to clean up the thousands of pieces of trash everyday.

Just do what I do. Develop all the new stuff in a user space sandbox page, then just hit the Move button. Keeps the RC nitwits out of it.

That only works if you don't have people stalking your edits.

Giano blocked then unblocked

Stuff

after complaining about Stifle's actions on this article yesterday. This sort of thing not news any more, I suppose.

Though actually what is news is that Scribe vigorously opposes the block.

'n' Suck

You asked us once to keep on reminding you

There's a remorseless logic to this.

1. An encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'
2. This divides users into 2 groups: 99% who don't have a clue about editing, but imagine they can, and the 1% who really can.
3. Creating a 3rd group: a police force who have to delete the piles of rubbish contributed by the first group, every day.
4. Huge disagreement and social unrest between the police force, who can't tell good content from rubbish (for if they could, they would have been in the 1% group), and the 1% group.
5. Result, the 1% don't edit directly but create things in sandboxes. The other 99% get blocked
6. An encyclopedia that no one can edit.

Simple really.


You haven't checked out my user page today? (Clue, click on the bit on the left that says 'WP user page').

No, I hardly ever bother clicking WP links anymore — just so much blood down the toilet, y'know.

I am very quickly losing my rag on this one

The point is the page is no longer there.

Hey Peter, you remind me of this guy;

I think that I remained civil at all times and I don't think I was trolling, and while I didn't think I was wrong to make the AFD nomination, it appears that the community feels otherwise, and I accept that decision and apologize that my actions led to this. I also don't care about being called a troll. Regarding the overall issue, someone blocked Giano (as many, including I, have done), someone unblocked him (as many have done), and we've been through the mill on this very recently. An RFAR here would really not improve anything and I hope the ArbCom declines the request. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

:I've just read over the AN thread (which I thought had closed and was not following) and wish to strengthen the above. I apologize for my actions in this matter and will try to be less short-sighted in future. Hopefully we can move on. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235782398

It seems that Stifle has apologised (which I set as a condition of returning - I will apologise back when I next log on).

So, are you officially "back to editing" Wikipedia now, September 2nd?

Damn, I gave you WAY too much credit setting the over/under at October 4th!

So, are you officially "back to editing" Wikipedia now, September 2nd?

Damn, I gave you WAY too much credit setting the over/under at October 4th!

You did indeed. I didn't think he would apologise.

I didn't think he would apologise.