Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

message: My goodness, how many assumptions of bad faith can we fit into one AfD? Grandmasterka 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEANS, dammit! Now we'll have even more assumptions, just to see how many more it can take! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lucky you, I was trying to editt he article and found he had deleted it because he was narked with Jimbo. Just charming! SqueakBox 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing the article? Oh, I knew I'd forgotten to do something. Let's try scouring the internet and seeing if we can move away from tabloid articles on this police raid. Carcharoth 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Iwas trying to ref it being notable, and yes we can do better than just focus on the raid, SqueakBox 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

message: I thought that Wikipedia is not censored. --RucasHost 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion continues at the new article Mzoli's. However, I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would provide some information on whether something has been deleted here, and how newbs like me can find that stuff. A link would be nice.89.182.15.209 12:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can access the content by clicking on the "project page" tab at the top of this page, and then "History" on the top of the new page. Then click on one of the dates before 01:37, 22 September 2007. - Fosnez 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the discussion hidden? 

message: Again, we get the crap that there is something so utterly and horribly offensive here that no one should be able to see it, but we are reassured that you can easily find it with one click. Who was the admin who decided for all of Wikipedia to hide away this information? What standards were followed in determining that this should be hidden away, and not all other AfD discussions? Just what is it in this AfD that would harm our delicate sensitivities? Why aren't all AfDs hidden/ Why not hide all of Wikipedia, just in case there's some "outrageous assumptions" or "hyperbole" out there? It's time some of our nanny admins grew up and realized that we can handle this type of discussion without useless attempts at censorship. Alansohn 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is pretty ridiculous.  We either need to be consistent and hide ALL articles for deletion debates, or none at all.  If people are ashamed of what they said, they shouldn't have said it in the first place.  Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, and that INCLUDES DELETION DISCUSSIONS.  <FONT COLOR="#DD3300">Bur</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DD6600">nt</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DD9900">sau</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDC000">ce</FONT> 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I sort of agree - I think we should blank all discussions that include (a) the name of a living person and (b) negative comments about them. This discussion has NOT been censored - it is fully available to any person through the page history. It has however been made unavailable to google Bots and Wikipedia mirrors, which seems sensible. Oh and please WP:AGF Alansohn, your comment above is pretty out of line... WjBscribe 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who decided to hide this?

message: http://www.lemonde.fr:80/web/article/0,1-0@2-651865,36-961774@51-824668,0.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.123.231 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On parle de vous dans le monde  

message: Blanking is lame. Don't get all bent out of shape if you made a fool/dork/whatever of yourself. It happens to most of us at least at one time or another. It only makes things look worse when we "hide" it. I'm just passing by, saw that it was blanked, and thought "hot damn, there must be some good WikiDrama here" and what do I find? A run of the mill AfD.. Thanks for getting my hopes up. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a look at the AfD it's obvious there are some WikiDrama queens here and they should better head off to a social networking site than diverting an encyclopaedia from its cause. --   Avg    03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the discussion is over, then you won't achieve anything with that. Like I said, you only attract more attention and build up the situation when you blank like this. I'm sorry if you feel embarrassed, whether for your own comments or the comments of others, but get over it, this is Wikipedia, and this stuff happens all the time (not to say that we should accept what happens, since we should always try to improve the way we conduct ourselves in these discussions). -- Ned Scott 05:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking is lame