Am I the only one who's noticed that whenever WP:DENY is invoked that it either:

1. Invoked in such a way that ends up "feeding" the trolls.
2. Is invoked by a person who constantly and consistently "feeds" the trolls.

It has also been brought to my attention that WP:DENY has nothing to do with trolls, just vandals (though some of the same suggestions may still be valid.)

This is probably easily my favorite (mis)use of WP:DENY.

Other troubling (mis)uses include:

• WP:MfD/User:Murdox/GNAA
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graffiti4Hire
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uncyclopedia (ninth Nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia Review (third nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernard Lewinsky

And nevermind now.

Yes, that.

What does User:Jclemens (T-C-L-K-R-D) mean by the phrase "manipulate life and coverage"?

This is something that's always bothered me about WP'ers and their deliberate, self-serving misuse of language. The word "vandalism" has always meant something drastically different from their definition. If you "vandalize" something, it usually takes a great deal of time, effort, and (often) money to clean it up - in the real world, you can't just "revert" obscene graffiti sprayed on a highway overpass, for example. You have to put on a safety harness and go out there with a sandblaster or a power-washer. Sometimes you have to stop traffic. It's dangerous, messy, and it takes a while. Frankly, to misuse the word "vandalism" the way Wikipedians do is grossly insulting to public facilities maintenance professionals the world over.

What's more, that word actually encourages more vandalism by getting people to think they're doing something much more permanent and difficult to clean up than it actually is. Of course, we know that Wikipedia doesn't want to discourage vandalism; that's how they keep up their churn rate. But the hypocrisy of it never stops.

If they wanted to actually stop it, or at least reduce the scale of it, they'd call it what it is - "stupidism," or maybe "wankerism" for the UK folks. Not likely to happen, though.

I suspect User:Jclemens was trying, and failing, to draw a legitimate comparison between the two concepts, and the best he could come up with was "manipulate life and coverage," which is worse than not trying.

Hell, it's insulting gang members worldwide.



Queue MZMcBride joke.



What he accomplished was coming up with the most ridiculous attempt (read: grabbing at straws) to keep the GNAA article deleted, making a spectacular ass of himself.

Per the above citing abusive nominations for deletion at Articles for Deletion...

There are always going to be a certain number of malicious challenges anytime there is a deletion system with free user access. ANY ONE PERSON can challenge an item and send it to AfD. Nobody should have the expectation that everyone in the world is honest, honorable, or fair.

Tendentious challenges will always exist.

The important thing is this: are the actual deletions being conducted fairly, according to a reasonable set of rules?

I am on AfD almost every single day of the year and I follow it closely. It is where the rubber meets the road at Wikipedia. In my opinion, everything is pretty much honest, above board, and fair.

Did the Honest side win or did the dishonest axe-grinders on any of those AfD challenges that you cite?

None, right? That's the key thing.

There's a queue to make MZMcBride jokes?


Comment is superfluous.

If you like to see a real wikiwordsmith, in the use of Wikitalk, you can go no further then, Wiki very own Guru of the wikiashram, Goathean (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Here is a short list of some of the real favorites...
example 1
example 2
example 3
example 3


I could go on, but the point is Goathed, is a real expert in the art of wiki.

Ask Tarc about this.

Carrite, you are an ass. Go back to AN/I and resume your bullshit.

Huh? None of those links show any use of WP jargon or misused/misappropriated terminology whatsoever... Three of them are deletions, and the other is a routine copy-edit.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were just mentioning him in this improper context merely because you don't like him very much.

Somey --

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that a lot of these people aren't speaking normal English.

Vandalism is someone throwing a rock through my window, or spray-painting public building with something offensive, or something like that.

Will you continue to spout this bullshit no matter what I say? Reading that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.



If I wasn't considered a sockpuppet of LiteralKa (despite never making an edit and registering over half a decade ago) right now, I would.

Tarc=Jimmy juicing clown tard..

Classic John...

I can personally confirm that WP:DENY works against itself