Talk:Lord Raffles
From Charas Project
(Difference between revisions)
(→Notice) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This is bound to be a very controversial article. For now, I am protecting it, so any edits that you want made to the article will have to go here first. If you don't like it, then screw you: it's my wiki, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. [[User:Admin|Admin]] 23:41, 5 March 2007 (EST) | This is bound to be a very controversial article. For now, I am protecting it, so any edits that you want made to the article will have to go here first. If you don't like it, then screw you: it's my wiki, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. [[User:Admin|Admin]] 23:41, 5 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| - | :Actually, to make this Wiki as accurate and objective as possible, I think we should even add such articles, even though it might "fuel someone's ego".--[[User:GaryCXJk|GaryCXJk]] 14:11, 6 March 2007 (EST) | + | :Actually, to make this Wiki as accurate and objective as possible, I think we should even add such articles, even though it might "fuel someone's ego". |
| + | :But I do think the article looks horrid. It doesn't appeal to get read.--[[User:GaryCXJk|GaryCXJk]] 14:11, 6 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ::One of the problems with it is that Warxe also ripped out the rest of the things that were going on during the Raffles era, namely the staff's inability to get along, and just stuck it with the Raffles article for some reason. He did the same thing with the RRWP + new mods. Don't know why. - [[User:SaiKar|SaiKar]] 22:41, 6 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | :::This isn't the type of organization that the History article quite needed. [[User:Osmose|Osmose]] 11:35, 7 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :It's not your wiki. It's the community's wiki. You don't have free reign, you have other sysops to consult with, as well as the rest of Charas to reach consensus with. The whole concept of a wiki is to share with others, not to have one person own it. Also, no one is going to spam this page, and if they do, we can easily handle it. The protect is unneeded and I'm removing it until we can have a Sysop meeting to work out a few issues. [[User:Osmose|Osmose]] 11:44, 7 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Current revision as of 16:44, 7 March 2007
Notice
Originally, we agreed to not make a Lord Raffles article, as it would only fuel his ego - but I now feel that it is unavoidable.
This is bound to be a very controversial article. For now, I am protecting it, so any edits that you want made to the article will have to go here first. If you don't like it, then screw you: it's my wiki, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. Admin 23:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- Actually, to make this Wiki as accurate and objective as possible, I think we should even add such articles, even though it might "fuel someone's ego".
- But I do think the article looks horrid. It doesn't appeal to get read.--GaryCXJk 14:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- One of the problems with it is that Warxe also ripped out the rest of the things that were going on during the Raffles era, namely the staff's inability to get along, and just stuck it with the Raffles article for some reason. He did the same thing with the RRWP + new mods. Don't know why. - SaiKar 22:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- This isn't the type of organization that the History article quite needed. Osmose 11:35, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- One of the problems with it is that Warxe also ripped out the rest of the things that were going on during the Raffles era, namely the staff's inability to get along, and just stuck it with the Raffles article for some reason. He did the same thing with the RRWP + new mods. Don't know why. - SaiKar 22:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- It's not your wiki. It's the community's wiki. You don't have free reign, you have other sysops to consult with, as well as the rest of Charas to reach consensus with. The whole concept of a wiki is to share with others, not to have one person own it. Also, no one is going to spam this page, and if they do, we can easily handle it. The protect is unneeded and I'm removing it until we can have a Sysop meeting to work out a few issues. Osmose 11:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)
