Category talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Cirt in topic Wow, a category

Wow, a category edit

Wow, a category for his's kinda funny how people (maybe I should include myself in this) do these odd little workarounds on this project to slide over, under, beneath NPOV. Bddpaux (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To further clarify.....since this is a wiki, enough huffing, puffing and fire-starting can transpire, that something barely newsworthy stumbles into becoming newsworthy. Bddpaux (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you be more specific? -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bddpaux, for your perspective, there is a history to this. en.wp has recently been demonstrating the most dysfunctional aspects of its community, over its article about the neologism. In the midst of that (as it happens), Cirt wrote a story here about the role the neologism has played in this year's primary campaign (an article, by the way, which I not-ready'd and asked for revisions to, which Cirt industriously acted on, in an all-around satisfying positive reviewer/author collaboration that inspired the blurb now on my user page). It is, or is supposed to be, a routine courtesy between projects to provide sister links to related work, and so a link to Cirt's article was added on the Wikipedia article — and was promptly removed, with remarkably dysfunctional squabbling. This category here was created, named identically to the Wikipedia article, by one of our dual-citizenship (as it were) Wikinewsie-Wikipedians, in the hope that some of the Wikipedians objecting to providing a sister link to the particular article would be more amenable to linking to a category of all articles here on the subject. --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that helpful explanation, Pi zero (talk · contribs), much appreciated! FWIW, the category was created by Tom Morris (talk · contribs), an admin on Wikinews and Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that certainly provides some clarity; without any perspective in relation to WP, the whole business seemed to be much ado about nothing much.....see how one's blood pressure can rise over the tiniest little thing.....when one is too quick to misinterpret? Bddpaux (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh hey, no worries! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" page.