Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule

Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule

Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should be deleted, or at least removed from Project space if the author wants it userfied.

• The title asserts a "rule" where none exists. It is a misleading title. Further, the use of ALLCAPS BLUELINK shortcuts, WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR intimidate and mislead as to the standing of the essay. The shortcuts should be deleted even if the essay survives userfied.
• The author wants it tagged {{supplement}}, to be listed among these: Category:Wikipedia supplemental essays. There is no support at the related policy or guidelines for it to be considered acceptable supplementary material.
• The author displays clear WP:OWNership behaviour over the page.
• The author is formatting the talk page as a supporting essay, by adding an introductory lede section out of chronological order.
• The page asserts facts that are disputed, and none but the author agrees.
• While the yogurt title may represent an interesting precedent, and there is probably much to be learned, interest in this is dominated by the single author and he is not particularly open to discussion as to detail, nuance and attention to the facts of the precedent. Instead, the essay is a gross generalisation not supported by precedent. It is possible that the essay may be substantially improved, retitled, and improved in standing, but these things can and should happen in userspace, before anyone may be given the impression that its message is acceptable amongst the community.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I will comment later, but in the meantime I direct interested parties to the article's talk page, where I and several others have identified what we see as problems with the essay, and where B2C's ownership issues are in evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or if required to acheive consensus, Userify -- Nbound (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Is there a new requirement on essays? That they are supposed to establish community consensus or be deleted? If so, then what's the difference between essays and policy/guidelines? Are any other essays ever held to this standard? --B2C 04:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing new here. Essays must be related to the project. User Essays have very wide latitude. Project space essay less so. Project space essays may represent a minority view, but are expected to be much more than an individual view. An essay may tll the story of a typical individuals experience, but where an essay asserts Contested essays are occassionaly debated at MfD. An essay need not have a community wide consensus, but it must not be capable of misleading. Your essay is capable of misleading on multiple points, and you seem committed to holding it to your particular view. It is more pressing to remove the misinformation from Project Space than to engaging in the long and difficult task of making this page acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Though some of this comment is pretty garbled, I agree with your general assertions like "essays must be related to the project", but I don't understand what point you're making in stating them here. Are you suggesting this essay is not "related to the project"? It's an opinion piece advising RM closers. How is it not related to the project?

    I've already asked below about the misleading aspect - but if anything is misleading, tell me what it is so I can fix it! In your proposal you assert the title is misleading, but you don't explain how. What is your support for your assertion that essays, or at least this one, should not be referenced with all caps blue link short cuts? --B2C 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete – This essay seems to just be B2C's bragging about finally getting his way with Yogurt. Yes, I can imagine situations where I'd like to get a move done this way, but the history of his fighting at Yogurt is so obnoxious that to memorialize it this way is contrary to any hope of more collegial work on such problems. He can take it back to user space, like the essay on his user page, or let it be deleted. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete – Like a few other stances taken by B2C, it doesn't pass the sniff-test. There seems to be a blurring between a self-styled program and what has been endorsed as consensus (not to mention common sense). Tony (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or userify as wp:wes allows for the deletion of essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages." Inviting — or, in its own words, "allowing" — move discussion closers, administrators, or editors to move without or against consensus blatantly undermines both wp:reqmove and wp:noconsensus. The disruption caused by this supposed "rule" being invoked isn't just hypothetical, as can be seen this current move review. user:j (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, or else move to userspace so its status is clear. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy, and replace the {{supplement}} tag with an {{essay}} tag. It is clear that a lot of people do not accept this opinion as a valid approach to move discussion and move closure. This is not a "supplement" to Wikipedia's policies and procedures; it is an individual opinion, expressing an approach to move discussions which is not generally supported by policy. Also, I agree with the nominator that the shortcuts should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Striking one recommendation because it has now been addressed by B2C. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm striking "delete"; it should be userfied. BDD has convinced me that there is no valid reason to actually delete this essay. However, it should be removed from mainspace into B2C's userspace. As long as it exists in mainspace, it is too easy to mistake it for some kind of Wikipedia "rule". And B2C has made it clear that he "owns" this essay, by not permitting anyone else to modify it (he did allow one out of BDD's two edits to stand, but that's been it). Very well, let him own it - by taking it into his own userspace, where essay policy says it is all his. He can still link to it in userspace; indeed, his userspace is full of essays and FAQs and many other expositions of his opinion, and he links to them all the time, and that's fine. Let's just not pretend that this is something other than an exposition of his opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an exposition of an opinion which was originally mine, but potentially shared by others too. I have no issue with people editing it who share the essential original opinion. This is the norm of essays in WP space. It is not appropriate to go to WP:JDLI and change it to say that opinions not based in policy should be given just as much weight as assertions based on policy when evaluating consensus. That may be your opinion, but it's not the essential opinion of that expressed at JDLI as laid out by the original author.

Similarly, it's not appropriate to go to this essay and make fundamental changes like SmokeyJoe did. I did not revert edits made by the two other editors who made changes to the essay anyway. And I'm still baffled by what your factual objection which we never resolved on the talk page because you dropped the discussion, so I don't know where you are on that. --B2C 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You reverted both BDD and me when we attempted to make your statement of the situation more honest. You reverted Smokey Joe, three times. The only outside edits you have retained were BDD's nutshell and Calidum's "Boston". As for my "factual objection," I dropped it because it was pointless to say any more. No one can ever "explain" anything or "resolve" anything to your satisfaction, and no discussion with you ever ends except by the other person dropping out. I'm sure everyone else reading that page understands perfectly well what I was saying, but you had your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ears on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as an essay but move to WP:Yoghurt. Jonathunder (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC) ;-)

You're joking, right? Good one. Because of course the whole point of the essay is that the spelling "yoghurt" vanished from Wikipedia, (almost) never to be seen again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who would joke about something of such monumental importance to the encyclopedia as whether to include the silent h in the name of a dairy product? Heavens. Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See Sayre's law. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No value. Yes, I believe that was a joke. Apteva (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Either nixing or userfying this essay would be fine; either way, I strongly agree that it doesn't belong in the project space, for the reasons elaborated above. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost all of the arguments for deletion here are quintessential WP:JDLI arguments. Clearly people don't like this essay. Dicklyon's speculations about why I wrote the essay are sad as well as irrelevant (not to mention 100% wrong). I'll get to the misunderstandings below. The point here is that not liking an essay, not liking why you think the essay was written, or disagreeing with the opinion expressed by the essay, are not valid reasons for deletion.

  I want to also point out that the essay is new, originally created on May 2, 2013, less than 2 months ago. It's not unusual for most if not all edits to come from the original author so early in its history. That said, two other users have already made edits to the essay consistent with its original intent. BDD (talk · contribs) came up with the nutshell text[1], and Hot Stop (talk · contribs) added to the examples[2].

  Notably, because he started this MfD, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) tried to radically reduce the scope of this essay[3]. In reverting that change, a second time[4], I noted that Wikipedia:Essays explains that essays are opinions, and so editors who disagree with the opinion expressed in an essay should write another essay. This is even better explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays#Acceptance_of_essays.

  As to the factual dispute, that is discussed at length at WP:Yogurt Rule#Incorrect statement in this essay. Maybe somebody else can explain what the issue is, because I honestly don't understand it.

  Now, the only argument for deletion presented here that even mentions policy is from J (talk · contribs), who notes that WP:WES "allows for the deletion of essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages.". But J omitted an important word, "overtly"... essays that "overtly contradict policy" tend to be deleted, though it qualifies that with saying "not just disagree with".

• Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays.

It's very disappointing to learn that so many people apparently think that what WP:Yogurt Rule says "overtly contradicts policy" and/or "intentionally undermines" policy, when it doesn't even disagree with policy!

J claims that the essay "invites" or "allows" RM closers to move without or against consensus. Presuming others might misunderstand similarly, I've addressed that at length at WP:YR#Does this essay contradict policy?, but essentially finding consensus in favor of the move under the conditions described in the essay has always been well within the discretion of RM closers.

The claim that this essay disagrees with any policy, let alone overtly contradicts policy, or intentionally undermines policy, is entirely without basis. --B2C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I just noticed that Template:Supplement specifies that that template is to be used only "when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to link to an essay in question". I was not aware of that and so have replaced the template with template:essay [5]. I note that incorrect template usage is a reason to fix the template, not delete the essay. --B2C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• <humor>Delete per Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</humor>
• Keep In case anyone needs reminding, the existence of this essay does not create an actual rule that will bind us all. B2C is as free to cite this rule in arguments as you are to ignore it. As for its content, this is well within the accepted boundaries of an essay. WP:WPESSAY says "Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors." The only criterion of WP:NOESSAY that this even arguably fits is the "overtly contradict policy" clause. I see plenty of piling on against an unpopular editor, but I see no evidence that the Yogurt Rule contradicts policy, overtly or otherwise. Rather, it's an interesting idea. Especially with a severe lack of comments on content, I will stand against this witch hunt. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• It explicitly encourages and "allows" editors, closers, and administrators to close move discussions against or without a clear consensus in order to hypothetically prevent predicted future move discussions. It's been toned down slightly, and he's even added a disclaimer that disavows any such actions, but it's still the very essence of the essay. So, yes, it does undermine policy, although the "overtness" of that part of the essay has been toned down. The disruptive element of it its "allowance" has already been demonstrated, however, and I suspect it would continue to be used in that nature. So, no, this isn't a "witch hunt," it's an effort to stop a misleading and disruptive essay from being cited to encourage or enable future disruption. user:j (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's not a witch hunt. This looks like a rule, but it's not, even though it is used as one. Omnedon (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Murphy's Law is not really a "law". I'm using the term "rule" in this context similarly. That's not obvious? --B2C 23:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• J, you make the claim that the essay "explicitly encourages and "allows" editors, closers, and administrators to close move discussions against or without a clear consensus". If it actually does that, that's an error that needs to be rectified. Please identify the specific wording that you believe does this.

  Okay, I actually searched for the word "allow" in the essay to figure out what you're talking about. It must be this, as it's the only occurrence of "allow" in the whole thing:

The intent of this essay is to allow admins to invoke the WP:Yogurt Rule (a.k.a WP:YR) in similar situations, and for involved editors to cite it as applicable when appropriate.

First, it should be noted that "in similar situations" refers to the Yoghurt/Yogurt "situation", so "similar situations" refers to situations in which (among other things) the support arguments are stronger in terms of policy. There is no explicit or implicit attempt to encourage "[closing] move discussions against or without a clear consensus".

Yes, it says "allow", but that term modifies "admins to invoke the WP:Yogurt Rule". Surely admins could not "invoke" a "rule" described in an essay that did not exist - hence creating it allows for it to be invoked! What's wrong with that? RM closers can already (and always could) apply the reasoning given in the essay in the situations described. This just makes it easier for them to do what policy allows. But I can see why you are confused by this wording, so I changed it to say this:

The intent of this essay is to remind RM closers that finding consensus in favor of a move not clearly supported by a strong majority of the participants in the RM discussion is within the closer's discretion as long as the support arguments are stronger in terms of policy basis, and to encourage taking advantage of this policy-supported discretion when the certain conditions listed below are present. This essay provides RM closers with an easy way to explain their reasoning in these situations by allowing them to "invoke" the WP:Yogurt Rule (a.k.a WP:YR), and also allows involved editors to cite the "rule" as applicable when appropriate. This should help resolve conflicts sooner than they would otherwise be resolved.

Is that satisfactory to you? Anyway, wouldn't it be more appropriate to work out this kind of stuff on the essay talk page, not here? --B2C 23:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are very few "rules" on Wikipedia, but essays can propose informal ones and, again, can also be ignored. WP:NENAN is "just an essay" but other editors liked the sentiment and it's often used during TfD discussions. Some editors reject NENAN and argue against it, but no one is bound by what it says. I'm quite sure B2C understands how essays work, and does not operate under the assumption that this page represents an actual rule that anyone will have to follow. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but the essay is abundantly clear (and was from the start) that it is entirely up to the closer to decide whether or not to invoke the rule. It never said or implied anything that even suggested anyone would ever be required to move in accordance with what the essay encourages. --B2C 23:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

BDD, The nomination is not a witch hunt. I am often in agreement with B2C. I consider him to be generally 80% right. He made an excellent, authoritative summary at Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory, which on discover lead me to make the last proposal to move yogurt. I became aware of the yogurt history, and have followed it since. However, the project page discussed here over-reaches very far, and is misleading in intent, actual content, title, and shortcuts. As my initial attempts to correct were plain rebuffed, seen both in the edit history and on the talk page page, this course of action was correct. The project page is misleading, and attempts to fix it are unproductive, and so it should be deleted or otherwise forcibly fixed via MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are genuine and not personal, SmokeyJoe. But the others? I really don't know, but I can only AGF.

What I don't understand with you is why you won't address my repeated responses to your objections which I initially made in my edit summary remarks when reverting, then on the essay's talk page, and finally here.

To summarize, we disagree on the appropriate scope of this essay. That's clearly a subjective matter, and your opinion differs from that expressed in the essay (which has been reinforced since you first objected). Instead of changing this essay to be in line with your opinion, why don't you write your own essay? Why do you have change this one, or try to get it deleted if you don't get your way? Further, witch hunt or not, BDD's more important point is that there are no policy-based grounds on which to delete this essay. What do you say to that? --B2C 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, what is misleading about the essay? Do you have any evidence that people use it to mean something that it doesn't mean? Or are you speculating? --B2C 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I noted when I modified my comments above: B2C very clearly intends to own this essay. He firmly rejects any attempt by anyone else to modify it in any way, as can be seen here as well as at the essay's history and talk page. But the only way he can WP:OWN it is to take it into his own namespace, and that is what I believe should be done. B2C, you should actually support that; then it would be all yours. You can't have it both ways: you can't both own it and keep it in mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not WP:OWN at all. I protect the essential basic opinion of the essay just as I would for any essay regardless of who originally wrote it, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays:

However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay

--B2C 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C.
I have rejected your responses in the edit summaries and on the talk page because for me, to meet you anywhere near halfway would be to implicitly agree to an essay that I consider unacceptable. As it stands, or for anything less than the edit I already made, I am unwilling to be considered a contributing author. If it were in your userspace, I might feel able to offer constructive criticism, but I do not feel comfortable assisting in the construction of anything like it if it sits in Project Space, purportedly representing its authors.
We disagree on the scope of the essay, yes. I disagree that the yogurt precedent says aything nearly as strong as you do, and I certainly disagree that it defines a rule that an unsuspecting other editor might read on its face value.
One step back, I see that others have problems with the essay, and that you alone claim it. For that reason alone, it should be at least userfied. Whether it is userfied or deleted, that is entirely your decision. Further, you have displayed definite OWNership behaviour that is incompatible with a ProjectSpace page.
"no policy-based grounds on which to delete this essay. What do you say to that?" I say that this view comes from an overly rules-based perspective. It is a perspective that respects rules above discussion. It is to wikilawyer. I say that the rules, as written, are far fuzzier, older, mistaken, and incomplete than this perspective allows for. I say that a consensus here, at MfD, can see the page deleted per consensus regardless of any rule elsewhere.
What is misleading about the essay? A. That is asserts that there is any such rule. Let alone a "Rule". You gave it a proper-name title!. The shortcuts WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR are also unacceptable because they imply regular wide familiarity and acceptance of whatever lies behind the shortcut. Also misleading it that what is written is supported by the yogurt page titling experience. The page is misleading because it implicitly asserts that doing what the page suggests doing is a good idea, or that it has any breadth of support. So many things. Too many to fix if it has an author who thinks he has a right to protect an essential basic opinion.
Is this a case for a pro and against essay pair? Like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE? No. The assymetry would be ridiculous. Your essay is narrowly focused and out of left field. There are too many things wrong with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that there is no policy based objection to the essay. That's quite an admission coming from the nom.

I wouldn't hang too much meaning on the term "rule" in the title. Like I said elsewhere, it's as much a "rule" as Murphy's Law is a "law". For another example, consider the Rule of thirds, which is also is not really a "rule". It's just something that photographers may follow if they choose that is supposed to improve their photographs. That is the same meaning I intend with "rule" in this title. --B2C 03:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of policy for this. It is against policy to mislead other editors. The incompleteness of policy documentation won't save you. I agree that the history of MfD action on essays is complicated. I've probably participated in more of them than any other Wikipedian, and should probably update the documentation, but not during the progress of this discussion.

You wouldn't, but I do read a lot into the term "rule" in the title. We could write an essay on the Wikipedia:Yogurt precedent, which would beg for coverage on the extent and limitations of the precedent. I could give you feedback on User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Rule. I am aware of Murphy's law and the rule of thirds for beginner's photography composition, but anything titled "Rule" in Project space is too much, and note that the ill-chosen title is just one of several issues with the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Believing the title is misleading is a valid reason to start an RM discussion, not an Mfd. Believing the content is misleading is a valid reason to start a discussion about that on the essay talk page, not start an Mfd. --B2C 04:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad title implies bad intention and your intention was elsewhere clear and consistent, and unacceptable. The essay advocates a new behaviour for closing, purported to be based upon the yogurt case. On examination, the connection between yogurt and the new advocated behaviour was false. You refused my corrections. You answered my talk page points with wikilawyering; that discussion was clearly not going to solve the problem. You very clearly want to WP:OWN the essay. In the meantime, you had been throwing around bluelinks to your essay as if it were policy. The page read as policy-speak. The page was misleading, and was being used disruptively. Nominating at MfD was entirely proper, suggesting otherwise is absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Userfy. This is an essay that claims status within Wikispace – subject to "the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", yet its principal author seems to be jealously guarding it from others' attempts to make any changes. Thus, this essay would seem to be the expression of personal view of one editor, and as such should stay in his own userspace. I'm hardly surprised to see the beginnings of a filibuster to keep this effort, for this is B2C's trademark to make his view the dominant view in any discussion in which he participates. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Filibuster? I'm just trying to make sure all concerns are addressed. I'm not doing anything that should discourage anyone from contributing. For example, you weren't discouraged, apparently. --B2C 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Discouraged, no, but that's not to say I wasn't taken aback. I am always on guard when I see such volumes of text continually generated to support any particular viewpoint. And I suspect the longer the discussion, the more will be scared away; yet paradoxically there will be others drawn to it for that same reason. I suppose I should have known that would be the case from your involvement as I was drawn here by your post at WT:RM. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Lean Userfy Keep Honestly, I get that there are people that don't seem to like B2C. I get it. He can be very annoying. But I think that if he can address many of the concerns of the nominator, that I would be a "Keep". But given the concerns of SmokeyJoe, I am leaning towards a move to userspace. -Kai445 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading more, I've noticed that there appears to be no policy based rationale to delete this, or to force it into userspace. -Kai445 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I'm one of the editors who added an example to the page (though I'm not sure it actually fits the narrow definition provided). Anyway I intended to stay out of this, until I read through the discussion and found the above comment by the nominator that "a consensus here, at MfD, can see the page deleted per consensus regardless of any rule elsewhere" seems to indicate there is no policy-based rationale to delete. Absent that it should be kept. Calidum Sistere 03:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• To those saying "we can't delete/userfy, because there is no specific policy directly and unambgiuously covering this". Not everything is written into policy. Not everything needs writing into policy. Apparently "Essays must not be grossly misleading" is not currently a line in policy. Does it really need to be? Consider the following, which closed "delete" or "userfy" or "redirect", none of which were covered by a specific policy.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ageism toward Adolescents, United States
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Antiquette
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid the word "homophobic" or "homophobia"
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E should be policy
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOTCH
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Be nice
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bradspeak
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cabals are evil

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)