Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Post by Carrite » Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:09 pm

That's how it works. That's the guideline that applies... You're the one that sought documentation that what I did by stopping a unilateral de facto deletion of sourced content was kosher.

It was kosher.

RfB

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:52 pm

Carrite wrote:That's how it works. That's the guideline that applies... You're the one that sought documentation that what I did by stopping a unilateral de facto deletion of sourced content was kosher.

It was kosher.
:roll:

Whatever.

Even in this short comment, you're being a self-serving skeevy little fuck. Redirection is not deletion, as every competent Wikipedian knows.

You're beyond redemption. A horrible little scumbag.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Post by Carrite » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:15 pm

CrowsNest wrote:
Carrite wrote:That's how it works. That's the guideline that applies... You're the one that sought documentation that what I did by stopping a unilateral de facto deletion of sourced content was kosher.

It was kosher.
:roll:

Whatever.

Even in this short comment, you're being a self-serving skeevy little fuck. Redirection is not deletion, as every competent Wikipedian knows.

You're beyond redemption. A horrible little scumbag.


The only difference between redirection and deletion is that deleted content can be recovered from the history in a redirect by an ordinary reader or editor, assuming one is savvy enough with the edit history, which the vast majority of ordinary readers and a large percentage of ordinary editors are not. With deletion proper, the material is recoverable from the history only by an administrator, not by an ordinary editor, so an ordinary editor must find an administrator to do this for them.

The two outcomes are functionally equal, as anyone with a modicum of honesty and intelligence can recognize at a glance. This is why DELETE and REDIRECT are scored the same in assessments of AfD outcomes.

irredeemably yours,

tim

P.S. Your genitals are gelatinous and you probably drive a big pickup truck.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:38 pm

Carrite wrote:The two outcomes are functionally equal, as anyone with a modicum of honesty and intelligence can recognize at a glance.
Irredeemable. You literally explained in the post that you buried this nonsense in, why they are not functionally equivalent. One leaves the content recoverable by even a novice editor, for potential improvement by adding information that may not have been discovered, the other hides it from view except for a few trusted functionaries, because it probably can't be improved unless something outside of Wikipedia's control, occurs, such as new information being published. That is why one is called deletion, the other is not. No such thing as "deletion proper", except of course mucking around in /root, you just made it up as you scramble around on 4th and hopeless.

So even people who don't know Wikipedia as we do, have probably cottoned on by now that you're up to no good, trying to pull a fast one, trying to justify the unjustifiable. :D

Since you've been so stupid as to not admit defeat yet, choosing to just try to create something that resembles a defence to half-wits, which is of course how Wikipedians view the general public, it allows me to stretch the rack even further. Now that everyone knows the difference between redirection and deletion, why did you back both deletion and redirection in your bet? It looks like you hedged, which is illogical. It looks like you suspected that the article "Bat-Cow" might one day be able to become a Wikipedia article simply by people putting a little effort in, but you so badly wanted to win some money by backing your view it could be deleted, you demanded it be put through a community process, for which there is no policy based justification, in the hopes it would be deleted, but also by covering your ass by backing redirection as well.

That's a pretty fucked up way to approach the building and maintaining of Wikipedia if you ask me. That's the real reason why you can't find any policy or guideline to defend your action, because in context, the narrative you laid out only for your Wikipedia colleagues, it made absolutely no sense. Hencie their confusion at your apparent process wonkery, itself a gross violation of WP:NOTBURO. We of course know the whole picture, what you were really doing and why.

You don't know the meaning of the word honesty. The Wikipedian disease. Your mob were after all, the original mass purveyors of fake news.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Don't have a Bat-Cow, man

Post by Carrite » Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:44 pm


Post Reply