Wikipedia talk:Grief

	This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles
Bottom	This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

This page was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I Love It

Great essay! Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a great page :-D — Athænara ✉ 05:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun essay with good links. A true novelty! Suggest adding a stage 6 - "Selectively spam your own websites with Wikipedia censorship claims." Google searches: [1] [2]. 4.246.226.66 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Really sublime :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality stuff, and right on the money. --Stormie 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's so true. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice essay! Phgao 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew Wikipedia did humour. This is kind of weird, actually!Dixon H. (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page?

Seems to fit the criteria... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand your comments. This is an essay. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like an attempt to help people through a difficult time. Not sure how you can see the as an attack page. H 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, it's a blatant and unprovoked attack on defenseless, hardworking spammers. Nice work, too. --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MathIsFun

I suggest that this diff be removed from the essay. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Is Fun, this is not example of "spam".

I am not associated with MathIsFun (in fact, I am from a different country; check my IP, if you wish). But, I am concerned that this might end up being an attack page.

It is not appropriate to cite an active editor's statement for keeping an article as example of spam, especially when the article survived an AfD. Why accuse a resepectable editor of being a spammer? There are many better examples that can be included here. 202.54.176.51 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent example of that stage in grief. However since he ended up being correct perhaps it is not the ideal example. ^(H) 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with this. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humor

I was tempted to transclude {{humor}} on here, but too bad it says humor can't serve a serious purpose - when obviously you are trying to help these poor lost souls. Psu256 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you can't find one you like, make one! I think it safely warns drifters without detracting from the content's true intent. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Humor can be used and abused. I consider this article to often fall into the second category after attending and observing discussions between editors. --Svindland (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, policies do change

I see a serious weakness in this essay. Policies change. Good faith contributors have an obligation to comply with the project's policies, guidelines and long established conventions. But policies do change, and contributors who have concerns with a policy do have policy compliant choices as to how work towards changing the policies they disagree with.

I'd hate to see a sincere contributor, trying to work towards a change in policy, have their efforts mocked by being told they are at stage three of WP:Grief (ie "negotiation") and they should just go away. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading it. It has nothing to do with legitimate policy discussion; stage 3 is when people respond to spam warnings (or blocks) on their talk pages by saying, "If I can't have my article here, you should also remove this one", or "If that guy's article can stay, so should mine", or "How about we just leave it how it is, and I won't edit it anymore". No dice. And no, that policy does not change. Has not and will not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just spammers

I've seen regular dditors move through these stages. What is particularly painful is the, "It's such a loss to Wikipedia that I will not be able to write all of the articles I had planned to contribute. I believed in Wikipedia when I started editing but now I see it is just a game for power-mad, small-minded people."
This should be marked as the Stages of Leaving Wikipedia, spammers and editors alike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the elitists' way of stroking their ego and generalizing the attitude of any ticked off contributor. One of the sentiment I tend to get is that WPers tend to be quite holier-than-thou even though they are glorified volunteers. And obviously, every single dissenter are just jealous individuals who know nothing. --76.69.142.177 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example

I posted at User talk:TheVivid, but the user did not take my advice. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]