21:
181:
It's also a different situation in that it's less offensive (though that was never a real concern for myself) and it's not really a joke category (certainly humor is used, but it does have an actual function). --
170:
I object. I created this category specifically to encourage admins who didn't like recall still to hold themselves open to constructive criticism of their admin actions. Such a move makes little sense of
36:
142:
134:
29:
213:
242:
217:
186:
175:
164:
149:
122:
108:
76:
61:
138:
54:
Is there some reason people don't want to use the talk page for talking about this? Are categories special?
20:
201:
209:
230:
155:
Since the cabal is secret, I wouldn't want to betray its existence by arguing against that idea. --
92:
229:
That doesn't mean that they shall be trout slapped undiscriminately, because of the universal
205:
160:
146:
104:
72:
238:
172:
58:
99:
to contain the reference to WP:DICK? I know I'm not the only
Wikipedian who abhors it. --
183:
120:
156:
100:
68:
234:
55:
114:
Could you elaborate? Are you saying that admins never act like dicks, or...? –
115:
15:
233:. Trout slappers might be trout slapped as well. ... said:
67:I'll kick things off, with pleasure, Friday. --
8:
95:'s recent RfA thankspam, but does it really
143:Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping
7:
35:on 27 April 2008. The result of the
14:
26:This category was nominated for
19:
137:UCFD, does anyone object to me
1:
187:06:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
176:16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
165:16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
150:16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
109:11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
77:11:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
91:this idea, when I saw it in
62:14:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
83:Oooh, ooh, ooh... oh... no.
258:
197:? This is utterly random
218:18:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
123:17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
243:14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
231:ethic of reciprocity
93:User:Kim Dent-Brown
41:no consensus (keep)
221:
204:comment added by
47:
46:
249:
220:
198:
23:
16:
257:
256:
252:
251:
250:
248:
247:
246:
227:
199:
195:
131:
85:
52:
12:
11:
5:
255:
253:
226:
223:
194:
191:
190:
189:
168:
167:
130:
127:
126:
125:
84:
81:
80:
79:
51:
48:
45:
44:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
254:
245:
244:
240:
236:
232:
224:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
192:
188:
185:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
128:
124:
121:
119:
118:
113:
112:
111:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
64:
63:
60:
57:
49:
42:
38:
34:
33:
31:
25:
22:
18:
17:
228:
206:Flapperistic
196:
193:What the????
169:
147:David Mestel
132:
116:
96:
88:
86:
53:
40:
28:
27:
200:—Preceding
139:redirecting
32:or renaming
37:discussion
184:Ned Scott
214:contribs
202:unsigned
141:this to
30:deletion
171:that.--
157:Dweller
101:Dweller
87:Ooh, I
69:Dweller
235:Rursus
225:Iiigh!
129:Rename
59:(talk)
56:Friday
239:bork²
89:loved
210:talk
161:talk
135:this
133:Per
117:xeno
105:talk
97:have
73:talk
50:Uhhh
39:was
173:Doc
241:)
216:)
212:•
163:)
145:?
107:)
75:)
237:(
208:(
159:(
103:(
71:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
