ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

[MooMoo_Cowfreak]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Ok, let's make usernames like so:

FFRWRT-CowFreak

[FFRWRT-CowFreak]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Ok, hi.

[Nyokou]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

What the hell, make user names? This isn't like MP.
I disapprove.

[lord_carbo]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Let's have a mass FFR suicide. FFR will be all over the news, and the people who are left can say, "'verifiability policy' my ass, we have news coverage of FFR all over the place." In turn, a FFR Wiki article will be created at the cost of anywhere between 20 to 50 lives.

[FFRWRT-CowFreak]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

What the hell, make user names? This isn't like MP.
I disapprove.

You don't have to, I just recommend it.

And, I'm putting a post in everybody's profile who is interested.

[blindreper1179]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

I'll join the FFR Wiki Restoration Team as well.

let's do this.

[lord_carbo]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

In all seriousness, if you're going to make the article again, you need to realize with the Wikipedia article WHY it was deleted. It went against [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] (lol). If you do it again and it just gets deleted, the Wiki article will just get protected as blank and it'll NEVER get created. Don't **** up the second time, when you make it, make sure it's GOOD and PERFECT and COMPLETE the second you press the submit button.

And if you don't realize this, you obviously aren't enough of a Wikipedian to even make a half-decent article, and shouldn't be hosting a "revival project" for this.

It seems impossible to actually get sources for FFR save for some data off the servers for the site, but that won't work, so in short, this whole revival won't work and is a huge waste of time.

Good day, MooMoo.

[FFRWRT-CowFreak]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

In all seriousness, if you're going to make the article again, you need to realize with the Wikipedia article WHY it was deleted. It went against [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] (lol). If you do it again and it just gets deleted, the Wiki article will just get protected as blank and it'll NEVER get created. Don't **** up the second time, when you make it, make sure it's GOOD and PERFECT and COMPLETE the second you press the submit button.

And if you don't realize this, you obviously aren't enough of a Wikipedian to even make a half-decent article, and shouldn't be hosting a "revival project" for this.

I am no good at making Wiki articles, thus, I am getting other people to do it for me.

I'm just the leader of this hole deal.

That is, it would seem.

[macgravel]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

In all seriousness, if you're going to make the article again, you need to realize with the Wikipedia article WHY it was deleted. It went against [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] (lol). If you do it again and it just gets deleted, the Wiki article will just get protected as blank and it'll NEVER get created. Don't **** up the second time, when you make it, make sure it's GOOD and PERFECT and COMPLETE the second you press the submit button.

And if you don't realize this, you obviously aren't enough of a Wikipedian to even make a half-decent article, and shouldn't be hosting a "revival project" for this.

It seems impossible to actually get sources for FFR save for some data off the servers for the site, but that won't work, so in short, this whole revival won't work and is a huge waste of time.

Good day, MooMoo.

My words exactly.

Although, I would like for this to be made again.

[Pichu_XP]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Let's have a mass FFR suicide. FFR will be all over the news, and the people who are left can say, "'verifiability policy' my ass, we have news coverage of FFR all over the place." In turn, a FFR Wiki article will be created at the cost of anywhere between 20 to 50 lives.

Yes, but that would be a news wiki, and nobody reads those.

[FFRWRT-CowFreak]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Yes, but that would be a news wiki, and nobody reads those.

I also think getting a new username for this is dumb.

All who are not in favor of the new username thing say "I"

Five more votes will persuade me to not do that.

[Pichu_XP]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

Hmmm, I just edited that part out. Whatever.

[lord_carbo]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

A) What the hell is the point of a new username for this? Seriously, that's retarded.

B) @macgravel: It's not a matter of what FFR wants, but what will happen. I want a million dollars, but I need to, you know, get real, instead of making a thread about how I'm going to get a million dollars.

[Afrobean]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...06_December_15

(editing.. hold on that URL didn't work)

You can see there that Chardish attempted to keep it up but we needed more support than that.

Cheers,

Synthlight

I guess you missed where I was just as vocal for it to be brought back.

I also tried to keep it up in the DDR article (in which a list of DDR sims is available), but apparently they feel like things like Text Text Revolution exist while FFR does not.

Also, apparently even though FFR is the something like 90% of the first page of google results for "FFR", it is not note-worthy enough to be named in the disambig page for "FFR", just because it's main article was deleted. This is the same logic they used for saying it couldn't be named anywhere in all wikipedia: "it wasn't noteworthy enough for an article, so obviously it doesn't exist at all 8)"

Oh and I believe it was deleted injustly too. There was no solid agreement for whether to delete, but then some admin came up and just deleted it anyway.

ps hi carbo what about the policy of iar? I could understand if there was actually question as to whether FFR existed or not, but it is obvious to anyone with a brain that it does. As for original research: that's partially true, but should we wait for someone to do a doctoral dissertation on FFR to be able to publish information at all about it? Anyway, the original research thing was never even brought up as a reason for it to be deleted. The only thing mentioned was lack of sources (because apparently first hand sources are 100% false in the eyes of those losers).

pps if sources for **** (ie the fact that FFR even exists) were needed for everything, wikipedia would lose around 90% of it's useful articles. The fact is, however, that there is a large mass of information with absolutely no sources, but it stays as is thanks to IAR. If you want verifiable sources for every piece of information ever, you'll be limiting yourself greatly in the amount of information you'll have at your disposal.

[Chromer]

Re: ITT We Remake The Old Wikipedia Article for FFR

I say we just let Synth go through it for the editing before we put it back on the site.