Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6

My major concern
...is that if this hadn't been nominated for deletion so aggressively, no one would have honestly given a shit about this page or even remembered it two days' hence. Lawrence §  t / e  16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the BADPODCASTS crowd is doing great publicity work for the banned users and their grievances against Wikipedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the point to this thread. Break it down for me.  I'm interested. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people aren't seeing the reason for the nom here. We have a page that describes a set of audio files, hosted on Commons... that set of audio files has a record of a conversation between users in good standing (Private... Raul...), users not in good standing (Greg K, et al), and people who are not even Wikipedia editors (Somey). It seems rather thoughtcrime-ish to want to delete the record page of that discussion, which is part of a series of discussions that included things like a discussion with WMF board members, the WMF executive director, etc, because some (but not all) of the participants are not currently able to edit. Further, I think it's making you look silly. Hence the comments that nominating this is working against whatever goal you thought you were pursuing. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll address your points in order. I nominated this page, because I think I see a trend, one that I'm not comfortable with, and one I thought would have a consensus to stop.  I don't know how to address your characterization of my looking silly, I don't think it matters in this discussion.


 * I have no goal in this context that I was pursuing. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar's comment about summed up my thinking too, from when I found this. The other thing I had thought was that if we didn't want to give banned users the recognition, the nomination was the wrong way to go about it. The podcast is like Signpost, or the daily paper. I don't even recall half the podcasts I listened to a week ago myself. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the community is ok with it (*looks at the MFD*) then I've really no place fighting it at this point. Of course consensus can change, but I don't think it will anytime soon regarding this. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Add to that if you indeed don't want these voices to be heard, the opposite has happened. Publicity likes this garatunees more listeners, not less. Viridae Talk 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No issues here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Scream, Not The Wikipedia Weekly has now had a lot more publicity, and no doubt many people listened to the content of these dreaded files. I mean, they have *gasp* banned users talking. That's, like so seriously bad I can't believe it!  Majorly  (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Majorly, I don't really know how to address your comments. You kind of exaggerate things a little here, and I mean that the best way I can. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Humorous parody though exaggeration. A common literary device. I'm sure we have an excellent article that covers it somewhere. The people being made fun of often don't see the humor. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)