Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin

message: I think you mean rogue and not rouge; I suppose that’s why this essay is funny. However, when you’re following policy and someone says you’re not, that’s not funny.--68.167.7.162 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The joke about "rouge" admins dates back to 2002 when the admin class was first created. It is not misspelt - "Rouge" is a common mis-typing of rogue, and that is how the label was first created. You seem to be misunderstanding the point about the rouge admins - since the earliest days we have had to deal with people coming to Wikipedia to spread 'THE TRUTH', and the rouge admins were those who faced these  nutjobs passionate editors down. Manning (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: This page does not contain the TINC:approved stamp.
Perhaps SCREW will have something to say about this...Assistant N (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: message

message: I have read and find this page quite amusing. That being said, there are a couple of things that "I" would change:
* 1) I would put the following banner on the actual article page:
	That page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.
* 2) I would also add another banner above that one that tells people that have a legitimate concern or complaint where they can go to get help
	IF you have a serious and legitimate complaint, please follow the proper procedure and file it here.
Other than those two banners being put at the top of the page so that editors that have real issues and are getting desperate to find a solution don't mistake the page as something it is not. —  (e • t • c) 17:20, April 2, 2013‎ (UTC)
:Who is "I"? Obviously not you, because you put the word in scare-quotes. Some people use quotation marks for "emphasis", but you're plainly too intelligent and well educated for that. --Somebody else (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm not sure what your goal with this comment is, but I've added my signature so it is clear who made this post a year ago. —  (e • t • c) 12:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

text: PLEASE mark this page as a parody.  I came here unawares and was blindsided by what looks like the utter ruination of wikipedia.  The page is maybe a little funny, but not worth the damage it does to Wikipedia's reputation when a naive user stumbles on it.  Please be true to Wikipedia's mission and label this page for clarity.  N0w8st8s (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I too just came across this page for the first time and was a little confused. I looked at other humorous essays in Wikipedia:Essay_directory#Humorous_material and most seem to have a humor template, so I added one. I realize this might detract slightly from the overall satire of the page though and would welcome suggestions. UberKitten (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I love this page! That being said, there are a couple of things that "I" would change: 

message: A 2012 edit (diff) added "a rouge link" to a crucial document. I fear this may have been done by a sleeper sockpuppet of a Rouge admin. I have just now removed the worst effects of the change but the edit had remained in place so long that there may have been a conspiracy by other Rouge admins to protect this abusive activity. Action This Day. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive actions by Rouge admin. Possible conspiracy. Urgent action required. 

message: I have just (after being irritated at being effectively called a rogue admin by two users at Chinese Wikipedia) translated it to Chinese.  (See :zh:Wikipedia:胭脂派管理員.)  Anyone with decent or better Chinese skills, please review to see if I got the spirit of it and make improvements.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be tricky, the whole page relies on the joke that some people get rouge and rogue confused. Are the two words equally similar in Chinese? ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, so it's not a word for word translation - but that's why I'd appreciate some input.  --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese translation 

message: It's been said before but this page should have a tag on it that notes it is used for humorous purposes. Wikipedia is encyclopedic and not meant to adhere to some weird little club of Wikipedia editors. I'm going to add the tag at the top; since some moron gave you guys administrative privileges you'll probably ban me, but IDGA Flying F because I can change my IP in a matter of seconds. 2601:601:600:4E4C:1C8:AB08:BF02:F16A (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Humorous

message: There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Declaring a conflict of interest and not using self-referencing citations ? BushelCandle (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: There Is No Cabal

message: ...if so, I thought it would be good to mention the following: I don't think "rouge" is intended (by people who use it seriously) as either a reference to makeup or a misspelling of "rogue". As the page on rouge mentions, it is French for "red", and as such was used by many self-declared communist governments. And many of these governments were often regarded as dictatorial, at least by their opposition (including many self-declared communists who viewed these governments as "not true communism"). For example, the Khmer Rouge was the government of the (in)famous dictator Pol Pot. I hope this helps somebody who might be confused. BlueGuy213 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it is whatever you want it to be :D — xaosflux Talk 15:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sure If Serious (Even Here on the Talk Page), But... 

message: I couldn't notice the fact that this page talks about "the great conspiracy" to hide the Truth. I understand the idea that powerful people and organizations don't want people to know parts of the truth, but it's not like there's one conspiracy, but a lot of them, most of them aren't really great. shouldn't it say that? Fr.dror (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it largely does, afterall it gives a choice of dozens of common targets. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The great conspiracy?  

message: idk I am not thinking straight this morning. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 14:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:YOLO]] redirects to here, so I thought distinguishing from [[WP:BOLD]] made sense 

message: I want in plz accept Hank the Sniper (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to join? 

message: The redirect Wikipedia:YOLO has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Q𝟤𝟪 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wikipedia:YOLO]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]