Talk:What wikipedia thinks it is
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:
- (The very fact there are only links to the english wiki on this page should be a hint that this page doesnot belong here)
- (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)
- (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.