Talk:What wikipedia thinks it is

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk can be found at en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:What it thinks it is.


From article summaries by (147.etc), who was changing links to en:

  1. (The very fact there are only links to the english wiki on this page should be a hint that this page doesnot belong here)
  2. (and of course, you removing all these links is a clear sign that your goal is to destroy the goal of that page, rather than just merely putting it aside from life)
  3. (Hum ? So what are your arguments for putting stuff that belongs to wikipedia on meta ? Other than crude censorship really ?)
MyRedDice, I have the feeling I am badly repeating myself here, but could you please stop confusing people, and just pretend that anybody who happen to disagree with you is necessarily a banned user ??? (ban user who was not banned on his article content I might add).
fixed. An honest mistake - I believe I apologised elsewhere some moments ago ;-) --mrd
It's a little bit disconcerting to be even deny one's existence. I am *me*, okay ???

On the first point, I simply disagree. This particular article is "meta" (ie, "about") the English wikipedia. That's why, like many other articles that are about the English wikipedia, it is best placed here.

In short, you mean then that the en:Wikipedia:about should be moved here then ?

On the second point, I will fix the links when there is a reasonable consensus that meta is the correct place for the article. If there is a reasonable consensus that en: is the correct place for the article, then I will recommend it for deletion. I was avoiding wasting time.

I didnot see at all the "reasonable consensus". Should not consensus be reached only when all parties agree that the final decision taken is fair. As long as a party is really unhappy about a decision, should not the discussion go on, and people propose new options ? Rather than cruely taking the decision to do "only" what one side want and dismissed the other opinion ? Should not an article at least state that there is a disagreement, and why, instead of just removing the opposition view ?

On the third point, the arguments have been made many times by many experienced English wikipedians at en:Wikipedia talk:What it thinks it is. Commentary and debates about Wikipedia belong on Meta. This page is commentary. Therefore it belongs on Meta. This isn't about censorship - this is about having the right content in the right place. MyRedDice

Being an old timer (what I would interpret as "experienced" in your mouth) doesnt mean one is necessarily "right". An old-timer should on the contrary be able to behave in the wiki way, and show a little bit more respect to others. That is trying to listen, to propose new solutions, to compromise, rather than to force.