Talk:Squirreling
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2008. The result of the discussion was Delete.. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I feel that wiki
[edit]I feel that wiki and it administrators are biased towards scientology. Please allow the free use of this page and this Website (Wiki) and do not censor this page to redirect to Scientology. If you feel that the scientology usage of the word is important, please add a link on the page, please do not redirect the entire page. Thank you. 74.168.181.146 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia was never meant for your "free use" to being with. There is no reason that Wikipedia should tolerate your attempt to exploit editing power on Wikipedia to push your own agenda rather than to work towards Wikipedia's mission (which is the only reason you were ever trusted with editing power in the first place.) Moreover, you seem to be operating under a bizarre notion that it is somehow "better" to have the same content spread out over multiple articles. If you really think that Wikipedia and its administrators are biased towards Scientology, you would want the content to be stored in a smaller number of more detailed articles, so that you would have far fewer articles to examine for signs of the bias you think you will see. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting comments. Funny I seem to see that Wikipedia over there on the top left has "The FREE Encyclopedia" written below its name. As far as exploiting editing power, this page was originally created where none existed, later instead of proper editing (adding a section and link to the concurrent content) it was replaced with a direct link, that seems like an exploitation of editing power. As far as Wikipedia's mission statement, please quote it to me. The most Bizarre notion here is how much you presumes what someone "wants" "would have" or is biased towards. Typical COS methodology here, take everything you do and blame the other. Hey, here's a handfull of dirt for your brain, you need it.74.182.224.212 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- The sad part is, you probably actually mean all these stupid things you're saying. As nonsensical as they are, you probably really have hypnotized yourself into thinking they make sense. Most of your errors are clearly simply your unwillingness to believe something that does not suit your desires, but I will respond to the single error of yours that seems to originate from a lack of knowledge that is not willful. You did not "create a page where none existed", you created a page that once had existed and which a properly conducted AFD concluded should not exist. It is not an "exploitation of editing power" to enforce that unanimous decision to not have an article there. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting comments. Funny I seem to see that Wikipedia over there on the top left has "The FREE Encyclopedia" written below its name. As far as exploiting editing power, this page was originally created where none existed, later instead of proper editing (adding a section and link to the concurrent content) it was replaced with a direct link, that seems like an exploitation of editing power. As far as Wikipedia's mission statement, please quote it to me. The most Bizarre notion here is how much you presumes what someone "wants" "would have" or is biased towards. Typical COS methodology here, take everything you do and blame the other. Hey, here's a handfull of dirt for your brain, you need it.74.182.224.212 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Both of you please be mindful of our no personal attacks policy and be civil. 65.78.13.238 (talk · contribs) did correctly point out that there was already a discussion about this matter, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirreling. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)