Wickedpedians try to hide proof of arbitrary censorship
Within about 35 hours of the posting of my blog article about the Wikipedia discussion page where the Wickedpedian control freaks "lawyered to death" my attempted addition to the Discovery Institute article, that entire discussion page was "archived." A coincidence? The text of the current discussion page does not even mention the archiving (there are actually two archived sections). Links to the archived sections are on the right side of the discussion page, just under the headings that have the orange background. Archiving is supposed to be done only on old discussions, but some of the archived material was posted as recently as this month and December. My links to the earlier versions of the discussion page still work. The history of the archived material, shown here, is not shown on the archive page.
Labels: Wikipedia (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/16/2008 09:16:00 AM
13 Comments:
You are delusional as always. The Wikipedia editors have no interest in you and your antics.
Dunghill, the timing of the archiving is obviously very suspicious.
And if they have no interest in my "antics," then why did they make such a big fuss over my call for tag-team members for an edit war?
Also, it's Wickedpedia administrators, not editors. "Editors" usually refers to outside people on Wickedpedia.
> the timing of the archiving is obviously very suspicious. <
If you are a paranoid, everything is suspicious.
> And if they have no interest in my "antics," then why did they make such a big fuss over my call for tag-team members for an edit war? <
Even if you know someone to be a Cretinic asshole, seeing them run around with gasoline and an open flame does attract their attention. They have no interesting in your opinions. Then again, neither does anyone else.
Also, it's Wickedpedia administrators, not editors. "Editors" usually refers to outside people on Wickedpedia.
The Wikipedia "administrators" have no more interest in Larry than do girls.
It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large.
...
If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together.
I would say that no comments in a week and only three comments over the course of more than a month constitutes a lull in the discussion. Besides, this was not the first time the talk page on this entry was archived. The first archiving took place in July last year and covers all the discussion up to the end of April. From the history of the first archive:
(cur) (last) 11:10, 17 July 2007 Duae Quartunciae (Talk | contribs) (231,635 bytes) (New archive, everything up to end Apr 2007)
The size of the first archive is about the same as the size of the second archive. With the aforementioned lull, it was simply the proper time to archive.
As always, Kevin is making lame excuses for the Wickedpedians or other dirtbags.
As I said, the timing of the archiving is very suspicious. To avoid suspicion, they should have allowed a decent interval between the posting of my article and the archiving.
When archiving Wikipedia discussion pages, it is not necessary to archive the whole page as was done in this case. Recent discussions a few weeks or a few months old can be kept on the current discussion page while archiving the rest. If only old discussions are archived, it is not necessary to wait for a "lull" in the discussions before archiving. In this case, a new topic started by a question that was only about six days old was archived with the rest.
Also, IMO the current discussion page was not getting too large -- it had only about 20 topics and several of the topics had very short sections. Also, it is not obvious to many readers that some discussions have been archived.
> The Wikipedia "administrators" have no more interest in Larry than do girls.<
In Larry's defense, he has no interest in girls either.
> As I said, the timing of the archiving is very suspicious. <
To a suspicious mind.
> To avoid suspicion, they should have allowed a decent interval between the posting of my article and the archiving. <
You assume that they were even aware of your article?
> When archiving Wikipedia discussion pages, it is not necessary to archive the whole page as was done in this case. <
Although there is no reason not to.
>>>To avoid suspicion, they should have allowed a decent interval between the posting of my article and the archiving.<<<
I hate to tell you this Larry, but the world doesn't revolve around you. The editor probably didn't even know you exist.
>>>In this case, a new topic started by a question that was only about six days old was archived with the rest.<<<
And here's the topic:
Serious question: is this in any way connected to the Discovery Channel or to Fort Discovery? Or do they just happen to share the same names? Sweetfreek (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No.--Filll (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What else needed to be said?
>>>Also, IMO the current discussion page was not getting too large -- it had only about 20 topics and several of the topics had very short sections.<<<
Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. Yours' just happens to stink more than most.
Also, it doesn't hurt to leave old topics up on a Wikipedia discussion page for a few months in case new visitors want to comment on them -- unless, of course, the discussion page becomes unwieldy, but that was not the case here.
Also, about one-third of the archived discussion page consists of comments from last December -- that's pretty recent.
Right here, dunghill.
> Right here, dunghill. <
That link just goes to a general response, jerkoff. Do you think it is a response to you?
Yes, it is a response to me, bozo -- it has links to this blog.
You must have not read the link. It does show Larry making an ass of himself.
He is like a little child who doesn't get enough attention. He acts like a shithead just because of the attention that it draws.
Post a Comment
<< Home