[Fusion]

Why though? No reason to not re-examine it down the line.

...it is a nine-word joke that was decided could stay. What possible reason could there be to revisit it?

Perhaps the fact it really does to the average user look like vandalism that hasn’t been reverted yet?

[Mongoose]

You will have to explain to me any possible universe in which someone stumbles onto the Aeolus article, scrolls down to the veteran comments, reads a joke there, and has the immediate reaction of "Oh no, vandalism!"

[TopAce]

Andreas and Mongoose: You are both speculating. Unless someone (who doesn't know the origin of that comment and the... the... discussion about it) comes along, and incites a renewed discussion about it, let's not worry about it. Want a little factoid? It's been more than 10 years since that comment was added.

[Mobius]

Okay, phrasing it as "we all agreed" is factually untrue, and "clear consensus" is debatable, too, but there were more who either did not care or approved the comment. I was with you when it came to explaining the reference, and tried to came up with a compromise but it was quickly reverted and the edit war continued.

Clearly there's no solution that would please everyone.

I'm not vetoing the edit. I'm in no position to do it, either, and I'm not willing to edit that Aeolus VC. If the Wiki Admins want to leave that VC as it is, so be it.

I decided to post on this thread simply because I found the proposed description of our previous debate to be rather... inaccurate. There definitely was some consensus in favor of Battuta's edit, but it wasn't unanimous. Hence my comments on this thread.

[karajorma]

So, in other words, by reply 23 we've got to the point where you're saying that the matter was discussed previously and the agreement was that the comment would stay.

I thought we all agreed the Mixalot got to stay.

Seriously?


This. This is what needs to stop in this community. Pointless bickering over nothing. The matter was addressed last time, it was resolved. It does not need to be constantly relitigated so that people can find fresh trivial issues to argue about.

[Rhymes]

Perhaps we should all have a Frozen gif on hand for these conversations.

This one seems useful.



I suspect we will be seeing a lot of it in the future.

[karajorma]

Yeah. I know I've singled out Mobius for doing it on this thread, but he's definitely not the only one doing it in the community by a long way.

[Mobius]

I'm letting it go, in fact - do whatever you think it's appropriate about that VC.

However, you should at least acknowledge that it's not ok to change history, either. If somebody said something you can't pretend it didn't happen at all. In fact, as I said earlier, I'm not posting on this thread because I want that Wiki edit undone - my comments over here are aimed specifically at the several, inaccurate references to the previous debate.

[karajorma]

Mobius, I know English isn't your first language but if someone says "We all agreed" that can mean that people had other opinions but the majority decided differently. Which is literally what Battuta's first post said.

So seriously, stop.

[Mobius]

if someone says "We all agreed" that can mean that people had other opinions but the majority decided differently

 

[Rhymes]

[xenocartographer]

if someone says "We all agreed" that can mean that people had other opinions but the majority decided differently

 

Hey, it was mentioned up above that English isn't your first language, right? I totally get how it sounds like "erasing history", but this one really is just a miscommunication. At least where I'm from, "we all" is usually understood to refer to the group as a whole, not every individual.

Maybe the lesson here is to be more mindful when choosing idioms for an international audience...


Does the wiki support comments? <!-- The wiki staff have decided this comment is funny and harmless. Please don't delete it. --> (or whatever syntax) should address the problem of people thinking it's vandalism, if its possible.

[Mobius]

AFAIK there's no dedicated syntax for jokes so you could theoretically add [this is a joke, don't take it seriously!] right before/after the joke itself. I guess doing so would not violate any of the Wiki policies or rules.

[Colonol Dekker]

I don't care about the long term storage of the screenshot I just took.

I don't really know the song off the top of my head but there is zero way that last line is offending anyone, new, old, informed, uninformed.



Please can we lock it off and move on 😂😂😂😂

[attachment deleted to save space]