Talk:Mind Siege
Red Links!!!![edit]
SO MANY RED LINKS. Dude, could you either get on those articles, or better yet, save yourself a bunch of work and take out the ones that wouldn't really lead to on-mission articles? Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Link[edit]
Why would we want to link to CW of all places? We don't usually even link to CP as a source.--BobNot Jim 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- To see how the other half lives? It's not a reference - just a link. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- On that basis we could link to CW for half of our articles. Why is it especially relevant to this article? If it is especially relevant to this article then we should say why.--BobNot Jim 07:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to take it off, take it off. Your original reason was that the link was broken. I fixed it. I don't see why RW shouldn't link to CW on several other articles though. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- My edit line comment was: "link don't work. Who cares about CW anyway?". I have absolutely no objection to linking to CW if there is a clear reason to do so. The reason this article originally had a broken link to CW as that it was a simple cut and paste from this WP article which has the same broken link. The WP article claims that the Humanism article on CW comes from the book. If this is true then it would be a good reason to link the article to CW. However I've not read the book and I'm not sure it it's true. Furthermore the original cut and paste merchant - who is presumably convinced by this particular conspiracy - omitted that detail, which suggests that it may be doubtful. In any event I'm going to zap the link, but if anybody has a good reason for putting it back in no doubt they will do so.--BobNot Jim 09:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "link don't work" is a reason; "Who cares about CW anyway?" is a question. When the reason was removed, that just left a question. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I disagree. The question: "Who cares about CW anyway?" is clearly (or was designed to be) rhetorical. It assumes the statement: "Nobody cares about CW". Consequently is was the second reason for removing the link. For clarity the reasons were: 1. the link didn't work. 2. A link to CW is not necessary.
I apologise if this was confusing.--BobNot Jim 09:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I disagree. The question: "Who cares about CW anyway?" is clearly (or was designed to be) rhetorical. It assumes the statement: "Nobody cares about CW". Consequently is was the second reason for removing the link. For clarity the reasons were: 1. the link didn't work. 2. A link to CW is not necessary.
- "link don't work" is a reason; "Who cares about CW anyway?" is a question. When the reason was removed, that just left a question. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- My edit line comment was: "link don't work. Who cares about CW anyway?". I have absolutely no objection to linking to CW if there is a clear reason to do so. The reason this article originally had a broken link to CW as that it was a simple cut and paste from this WP article which has the same broken link. The WP article claims that the Humanism article on CW comes from the book. If this is true then it would be a good reason to link the article to CW. However I've not read the book and I'm not sure it it's true. Furthermore the original cut and paste merchant - who is presumably convinced by this particular conspiracy - omitted that detail, which suggests that it may be doubtful. In any event I'm going to zap the link, but if anybody has a good reason for putting it back in no doubt they will do so.--BobNot Jim 09:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to take it off, take it off. Your original reason was that the link was broken. I fixed it. I don't see why RW shouldn't link to CW on several other articles though. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- On that basis we could link to CW for half of our articles. Why is it especially relevant to this article? If it is especially relevant to this article then we should say why.--BobNot Jim 07:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete restore[edit]
I spent quite some time yesterday snarking this up, and I can't see any delete debate here. The restored version seems to be in line with our mission.--BobNot Jim 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I quite agree Bob. It seems that people have thrown out the foetus with the bathwater based solely on their annoyance with the original author. A rather irrational course of action to my mind.
Генгисevolving 07:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2000+ organisations[edit]
How do so many 'colleges and other organisations' and their millions of students and employees (even allowing for overlapping memberships, or even 'merely an active membership') manage to keep the conspiracy secret - when it is difficult to organise a surprise birthday party/agree on a definition of whatever shibboleth-terms are currently given priority?
'If it looks like a sieve, it probably leaks like a sieve (unless it gets coated in mud or 'the best butter'). Anna Livia (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)