On 7 Jun 2007 at 04:46:31 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Because they're a useless bunch of wankers, possibly. I'd forgotten that they existed, and I'm sure most of us here had, too.
Which doesn't really explain why *that* useless bunch of wankers gets their own article, while *other* useless bunches of wankers get people insisting, with the temperament of a junkyard dog, that no reference to them may ever be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.
On 6/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 7 Jun 2007 at 04:46:31 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Because they're a useless bunch of wankers, possibly. I'd forgotten that they existed, and I'm sure most of us here had, too.
Which doesn't really explain why *that* useless bunch of wankers gets their own article, while *other* useless bunches of wankers get people insisting, with the temperament of a junkyard dog, that no reference to them may ever be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.
Fourth time lucky perhaps....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth_%284t...
Is this an acceptable forum to discuss what has actually caused this ruckus, or does BADSITES apply to the mailing list as well?
-- John
On 07/06/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Fourth time lucky perhaps.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth_%284t... Is this an acceptable forum to discuss what has actually caused this ruckus, or does BADSITES apply to the mailing list as well?
It quite definitely doesn't, though St Benedict's Rule of course still applies.
- d.