Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-07/In focus

← Back to In focus

Discuss this story

• "Can anyone ban anyone else here?" Have to admit it, he's no fool. Straight to the sensitive area. Much wagon-circling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• I just undid the edit removing "related news" that I have joined the Wikipediocracy community as well as the Wikipedia community. I hope this isn't seen as a COI. It was removed for the reason: "we can't actualy be sure its him." Hopefully, the removal by my known Wikipedia user will clear this up. I submit that "predictable" is not a word that is typically used in unbiased news reports. It is factually correct, but I emphasize here- as I have done on the Wikipediocracy site- that my presence in their forums or anywhere else does not constitute agreement with any statements appearing therein. For what it's worth, I consider my participation on any forum I choose a matter of free speech, and Lila's appointment should not encroach on that freedom in any way whatsoever. I do try to practice discretion and constructivism in all my communications. Wllm (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, Wil. I used "predictable" because it's accurate, but you're right in that it has a very non-neutral connotation. I've reworded it. I should also note that I personally don't think you would pressure Lila into anything based on the word of anonymous posters on a random forum on the Internet, and it wouldn't have been included except for the topical story that we were already doing this week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I applaud anyone that will give ear to their critics, even when abusive or deranged. Willingness to listen to differing opinions makes circumspect decision-making possible. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)