This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
84.9.130.70, please don't revert war to try to get round a VFD decision. No, this is not a question of you liking one opinion and I liking another—I haven't even formed an opinion about these sites, I just want for a) this article to be encyclopedic and b) for the VfD on We're shitting ourselves not to be subverted. Take a look at the *title* of the article, please, and don't change the whole focus of the text into projecting the message of the parody site instead! That's disruption of Wikipedia and contempt of process, i. e. contempt for the people who took the trouble to vote in the VfD. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The parody/critique site is relevant, and since the article about it was deleted, this is the best place to put information about it. Nobody voted for censorship; or if they did, they should be held in contempt.
Having said that, to my taste a link is enough. Mirror Vax 11:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
The dispute is now moot; We're Shitting Ourselves! is dead. Jay Maynard 12:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=icon}
