User talk:Daniel Quinlan/gaming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Old MFD
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
|
This page was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
[edit] Bogging things down
I can't believe that this was listed for deletion. Security by obscurity, great idea.
The only failing in this article is that it should say more about how to bog down the process of undoing your changes, so that it takes a lot of effort and pain to sort these things out. Many people will just decide that it isn't worth the effort. If I have time, I'll try to document that. — ciphergoth 10:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Guidelines against
You may be interested in the guideline against weasel words like "some argue". --ESP 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't serious, it's parody. Sheesh, you'd have to be crazy to actually advocate the stuff in here. Miltopia 13:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- So does that mean you've never seen these tactics tried on Wikipedia ... or you are convinced all of us have used them at least once? ;-) -- llywrch 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FWIW
This was a wonderful and true and very sad read, made only more prescient because they tried to delete it. Don't people ever learn? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Restored
I'm restoring this page because it has been kept at MfD twice: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming (2nd nomination). To be honest, I don't think donors' money should be wasted on pages like these (esp. because this is not humor, according to the creator of the page). But, process is important, and things like WP:POINT/WP:BEANS cannot be justified to delete pages which have survived two deletions. utcursch | talk 09:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
