User talk:El Sandifer

NOTE: You may want to glance at my userpage before leaving me a message, especially if the message has something to do with policy.

wow

You'd PROD articles that should go to AfD? Huh. This is something you're proud of? Isn't that just laziness? Herostratus 05:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, well, maybe. Still, a lot of articles are obvious AfD's rather than PRODs. But I see your point. Herostratus 07:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting Things Simply

Hi. Since I understand that you're not going to let process get in the way of writing the encyclopdia, an admirable plan, I've decided to phrase this in a simple, straightforward, and obvious way: stop making obviously bad edits that make the encyclopdia worse. Thanks! Nandesuka 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Phil. I'm glad to help you improve your editing. I believe the crux of the matter is that your understanding of what the word "verifiable" means is flawed. Perhaps chatting with some journalism professors might help? I'm sorry that you feel my blunt observation that these edits are bad is incivil, but I really think I'd be doing you a disservice to mince words. You need to step up to the plate and do a better job. To put it in terms that you should understand, I think you need to consider what would happen if someone other than you showed up at an article — let's pick "George Bush", for the sake of argument — and said "Oh, I talked to George Bush's wife at a dinner party, and she says that his favorite color is green." That's the type of edit you are making; even if true it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. That's a bad edit. It's not incivil to point that out. Hope that helps!Nandesuka 14:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say "such corroboration is uneccesary," you're clearly mistaken. I think what you meant was that such corroboration exists, because it was a public forum, etc., etc. Unfortunately, since you don't actually provide any such citation to reputable third-party reports of that public forum, we're left with just your word. Which, obviously, is insufficient. I mean of course I trust you -— your word is absolutely golden to me, Phil! — but it's utterly inadequate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I hope that clears things up for you. Nandesuka 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out too

Some more things you need to include in your fundamentals. Well, WP:V, for a start. How else can factual disputes be resolved? Stephen B Streater 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dobedo

Hi Phil - according to the deletion log you deleted Dobedo on 14 September. I can't tell what your rationale for deleting was as you didn't give an edit summary, so would you mind telling me why you deleted it? It has already survived an AfD, so PRODing wouldn't be appropriate. --Kwekubo 01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting the text back up would be helpful, thanks, I've been meaning to tackle the article for a while. Might as well do it now. --Kwekubo 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Kwekubo 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just write the bloody encyclopedia

So I figured why not try it? After all, I've been here for two and a half years. I've got a pretty good idea of what we're doing here. Why not just stop worrying about what all the policy pages say today, and about what the process to list something on AfD is?

Sure. Guess how long I've been around. In the spirit of experimentation, I suggest logging out for a while too. I'm serious. 72.137.20.109 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did that for about a month. Watchlist free living is wonderful. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah. That's what Related Changes is for. But, you have my worthless anonymous blessing either way. Go, and sin no more. 72.137.20.109 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

Just wanted to wish you well with the project. Wish I had your balls. That's all, really. --Steve block Talk 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MFD

Don't bother with a DRV on Wikipedia:Identity verification, I assumed too much good faith in the comments made in the deletion discussion, after a much more thorough review there is no reason to hold up the emerged consensus in that discussion. I've deleted the page, it's talk page, and it's redirect, and updated The MFD record. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OUT OF PORCESS ROUGE ADMNIN

Bah! I keep looking at your process log hoping for more ... - David Gerard 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong

Louis Armstrong is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

L'affaire Bogdanov

Greetings and salutations. I noticed that way back when, you helped bring the dispute over Bogdanov Affair before the ArbCom. You might like to see the current state of that article and find out how a few of us have tried to improve it. My personal hope is that getting all the details in the open will make life easier the next time such a brouhaha erupts, either in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Anville 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Use common sense

You seem to be saying "use common sense". Isn't there a guideline that says this already? I'm probably thinking of WP:IAR, but I wrote something on this recently that seems similar to what you are saying: see here. Carcharoth 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Court of infinite appeals

Like you said earlier, I've now seen rather more 4th and 5th AFD nominations than I'd care for. It's a well-known fact that if an article is deleted a bunch of times, we protect it against recreation unless it passes through DRV; how about if an article is kept-on-AFD a bunch of times, it is protected against deletion unless it passes through DRV? Would it be instruction creep to say that "after X AFDs that didn't result in deletion, any further attempts may be speedily closed unless DRV decides otherwise"? >Radiant< 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this here while following up something else. Hope you don't mind me butting in. I would say it depends on the reason for the renomination. If the reason is based on an argument where consensus may have changed, then AfD is a suitable venue. If it is a bad-faith nomination where not much has changed, then that should be incorporated into the speedy close reasons. I would add something to the AfD guidelines (or expand the existing guidelines) to guide people on when it is suitable to renominate (ie. article content has changed - though surely reverting back to the earlier version would address this; a policy has recently changed; previous debates were very close or did not reach a consensus). I would be against any protection of articles merely because they had been nominated for deletion lots of times. Also, it needs to be clearer whether contesting "keep" results at AfD is done through DRV or a new AfD. Carcharoth 10:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

WT:RS#Top-to-bottom_rewrite_proposed - I have taken your name in vain and could do with your contribution wearing your professional hat - David Gerard 10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Being a bit WP:BOLD, I've moved your excellent work to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, and will interleave it with the text of WP:RS. --EngineerScotty 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that NOR and V be combined, and RS ditched. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would this be enough to help with the situations you find frustrating? "There are certain articles about pop culture and fiction that are forced to rely on self-published posts on bulletin boards, blogs, and Usenet, because no other sources exist for them. These kinds of sources should only be used for articles about pop culture and fiction. The material relied on must have been posted by named individuals with a known expertise in the area, although the individual need not be a professional in a relevant field. Anonymous posts should never be used." See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published_sources, point 4. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've also added this in the section discussing primary/secondary sources: "Articles about pop culture and works of fiction may sometimes rely on editors' interpretations of primary source material, because of the lack of secondary sources. In these cases, editors should use good editorial judgment and common sense." I'm hoping that will help too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Professional to recognised

I've attempted to get a change from professional to recognised through. Thoughts appreciated either way. [1] Steve block Talk 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales

Hey, Phil. Replying in full here, as I don't think it's extremely pertinent to the WP:ATT discussion. I considered rewriting the Speedy Gonzales page, but I've just got too much on my plate right now. In addition to Schneider's That's All Folks!, the standard animation histories by Beck, Maltin, Solomon, Barrier, etc., and the DVD commentary on the Golden Collection discs, there is quite a lot of information about Speedy as a Mexican stereotype and whether or not this is a good thing. Just look at these Google Books hits. These Google Scholar results are also potentially useful, though I haven't looked at them carefully. Finally, newspaper and magazine archives can probably turn up information on any protests/anti-protests against or for the character. I think there's more than enough there for someone to whip that article into a good, scholarly FA. — BrianSmithson 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Felony vandalism

When I wrote that edit summary, I thought that vandalizing the main page of Wikipedia was grounds for an indefinite block. I apologize if you misheard. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Removing your semi-protection

It's nice of you to leave me a note but please don't screw with any of my pages unless you are indeed a sysop/admin.

I think it's important for newbs to contact the appropriate people on Wikipedia for any questions and concerns they may have, not me. I do not welcome, appreciate, nor respond to Anonymous comments unless I absolutely feel the need to. Thanks, Phil. Sweet Pinkette 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing semi-protection

Hi. I've removed the semi-protection on your talk page. I know that vandalism of talk pages can be a problem, but it's important that users be able to be contacted by newbies with questions and concerns about things they don't understand. I hope you understand - please feel free to contact me with any questions. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem--my page seems to have pretty clearly fallen w/in the "special circumstances" clause[[2]] of WP:SPP, but the vandal has since moved on. I actually would appreciate your removing protection on my front page as well. Note: I understand your position and opinion on this subject, but looking at the discussion at WP:SPP that you are involved in, it does not seem to have yet been accepted as WP. -Robotam 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA deletion

Mega Man weapons, though its GA status is contested (and thus it's removed from the list). However, that was due partially to a merging of badly written material into the article. But it was a GA when it was nominated, which suggests to me that some AfD nominators don't care about GA status. I believe under a strict interpretation of the current WP:V rules the sources wouldn't be allowed in. I'm not sure if a more lenient interpretation would have allowed them in either. ColourBurst 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation

Hi. Thank you for your aid with getting me to understand Wikipedia:Attribution. Your points were an important help, though I still think that the task of determining whether or not a site enjoys respect within its community... sucks.

I'm sorry for the pointlessly confrontational tone. More than one editor had previously told me that clear, uncontestable, publically available evidence of our own eyes is completely worthless. "We are an encyclopedia, therefore we don't write about what is Wikipedia:Readily_Observable" ... "we write about what is Wikipedia:Verifiable through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources..." Gah. :P

Timeline skew theories for The West Wing

You deleted the above page after a prod expired. I have previously read that article, and was about to read it again today, but it appears I came one day too late to remove the prod and save the article. How would one go about getting this article undeleted? Suoerh2 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already survived one AFD, so what makes you think it will not survive another? After all it is the main article to a section in a "featured article". So if it's good enough for a section in a featured article, its probably good enough to expand upon.

Your reasoning against this article is contradictory, you say:

the article is an unsourced fan theory that is necessarily based on unreliable and minor sources.

Which is it? Either it's sourced or it's not. I'm not sure what your problems are with the sources, but for articles about television shows, the television show itself is a very good source, not minor, not unreliable. The article also sources things directly to the producers of the show, another very good source. Anyways, if you want to put it up for AfD you can but I really doubt it will get deleted. Suoerh2 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sixth Party System

What happened to the original Sixth Party System article? This article survived its recent (few days ago) AfD. Thanks Joseph 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Was proper process followed in deleting it? (Please respond on my talk.) Thanks Joseph 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The last deletion was proper even though it appears to have been deleted a few mere hours after being posted on the DRV [3] ?

Also, what is your distate, that you speak of, for the DRV (that I am begining to share)? (As before, please respond on my talk page.) Thanks Joseph 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Connecting all of reality together

You wrote "The problem is... well, let's pull up a solid midlist Marvel character - Speedball. 1603 word article. Only 500 words of that pertain to the real world instead of the fictional world of the comics. That's the problem. Fancruft is in many ways a poor choice of terms for this. Especially since it's not even necessarily the case that the information itself is the problem. The problem is that virtually the entire article was written so as to pertain to the Marvel Universe, with occasional citations of issue number." here.

Which made me think of the problems in articles about economic systems in which enthusiasts pro and con anarchism and communism and capitalism go on and on and on with pie in the sky theories and barely coming down from their clouds long enough to source ideas much less tie ideas to concrete real word implementations of ideas (see mixed economy for the real world).

Which made me think of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop in which the "science is based on evidence" clan does battle with the "ideas are science too" clan in the field of cosmology as it related to plasma.

Which made me think of Logical positivism which holds that all knowledge should be based on logical inference from observable facts.

Which made me think of our troubles in wording Wikipedia:Attribution The point of attribution is credibility; which is achieved with an internal consistancy combined with connecting it all to objective reality. Sounds like our pop culture articles need to be grounded to objective reality to a greater degree.

Which reminds me of answering "Because the author thought it would sell books" when asked why a fictional character displayed a certain psychological trait by an English teacher in my youth. But I digress... WAS 4.250 17:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

BnG AfD

I wasn't sure if you were aware of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_and_George, but as a webcomic AfD I figured I should mention it to you. The article probably does need some clean up (to indicate popularity/historical importance in popularizing sprite comics), but it shouldn't be deleted. User: Thok 11:40, 25 October 2006.

Prestige

Hi, I left you a message on Talk:The Prestige (film), under the heading, "Rivalry". Could you explain what you mean by speculation? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. I saw your comments on talk, and I'm a little busy at the moment, but I should have a reply up within the next 12-24 hours. I just wanted to let you know. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting discussion

...concerning what is, and ain't, original research is to be found over at Talk:Ghost ramp. Salient points:

• The term ghost ramp doesn't appear to be formally defined anywhere that is a clear reliable source--some "roadgeek" pages do provide definitions for the term. However, in the roadgeek community, there is FTMP a consensus about what the term means, with some quibbling over details.
• The page provides an extensive list of ghost ramps, primarily in North America with a few in the UK. Many of them are documented with satellite photos from google, MSN earth, or similar imagery services, in which roadworks which lead nowhere are easily visible. Some users are suggesting that this sort of documentation is unsuitable--and that inferring that a given roadwork is a "ghost ramp" from such imagery is OR. (Disclaimer--I was responsible for quite a bit of content there...)
• There also seems to be a bit of confusion between OR and unsourced material. (Some claims in the article are currently unsourced, though sources can be provided in most cases--I have no issue with suitable application of {{fact}} tags).
• There was an AFD for the page--the discussion produced a lack of clear consensus (though the tally was 9 keep and 5 nuke), so the article was kept. The proponents of the AfD are largely now the ones raising the OR claims (note--I am not objecting to their presence on the page or to their arguments).

I thought that your opinion and/or analysis, should you choose to drop in and take a look, might be helpful. "Roadcruft", like fancruft and other pop culture topics, is one of those areas which is generally not well-documented in scholarly secondary sources, and has to rely a bit on self-published material and/or generous inference from prmary sources--although in this case, the inferences are reasonable.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent block to Thenatureboy

Hey, thanks for handling this so promptly. Things had gotten VERY out of hand VERY quickly. I was not aware that he had upset anyone else besides me and perhaps that "Amber" something. I was attempting to handle the situation more slowly; I had not yet personally contacted an admin regarding this, but was going through consultation with AMA, and was about to file an RfC with the help of an advocate. Just a few questions from here 1) With the current block in place, should we consider letting it cool down for a while? I have already instituted a personal moratorium myself on editing the articles in question for at least a week, maybe longer, to let things blow over. 2) Even in light of the block, I assume the RfC is moot at this point. If he continues the problematic behavior, should I contact you directly, or should I proceed with the RfC? Thank you for your help with this (even if I didn't ask for it). Please respond on my talk page, as I don't watch others talk pages (makes my watchlist too unmanagable). --Jayron32 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

wikiturfing: to reference or not to reference? that is the question

hi phil, i empathise to some degree with your comments about wikipedia policy. In any case, if you look at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Citing_forums_in_articles_about_themselves you'll see some links to an actual confusion regarding "reliable sources" in the context of wikiturfing and Criticism of Coca-Cola - feel free to wade into the pages themselves (discuss with me and stbalbach on the relevant talk pages, or just edit the articles) rather than try to argue policy. :) Boud 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction essay

Thanks for the heads-up. I want to carefully consider what you have written so far before contributing. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Excellent answers, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction essay

A cursory look over doesn't throw up any real red flags (as you say, it's brainstorming) except that it might be pertinent to note that fictional biographies can go some way to supplementing articles that have grown a bit too large (History of the Daleks, for example), keeping in mind, of course that it's all supposed to be from a non-fictional perspective. I'll keep an eye on the essay, see where it goes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Some help if you can

I noticed you left a conspicuous box on top of the Byron (Babylon 5) page. I didn't find the help on "in-universe" writing from the boxed link particularly practical. By their very nature, I find that pretty much every fictional biolgraphy in Wikipedia contains large elements of an in-universe perspective. Are we going to place a box on them all?

Obviously you have strong views on the subject - perhaps you could elaborate on the sort of style that is appropriate for Wikipedia on the Talk:Byron (Babylon 5) page. Or even better, make changes that present the same information in a more appropriate style. Dr Aaron 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! I looked up the David Sheridan site, and saw that it had been tagged for deletion (not just for reworking). It was missing some sources, so I added a few, but now it's apparently back on the delete list. Along with almost 40 other B5 characters, which you marked for deletion or cleanup within the space of 16 minutes. (Very efficient, I'll give you that.) Instead of forcing both of us to carry on a debate on 40 seperate pages, I thought I'd just ask here what's going on.

Is there a gold standard for fictional characters which deserve a mention here? Major part in a novel? Minor in three? Minor in a best-seller? If so, please let me know, then start applying those standards to every work of fiction on Wikipedia. As for the style - maybe you can start going after pages without any references before you worry about about the tone of such articles. Or suggest a style of writing which meets with your approval - if "fictional character" at the start of the article isn't enough, should it be in every paragraph? Every line?

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I agree that minor (emphasis on minor) characters should be merged into a list. I also agree that such articles need to be referenced, and not turn into expansive fan fiction without a single source quoted. However, if these sources are listed, and it's clearly stated that the article is based on fiction, I don't see a problem. Quack 688 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response re:SPOV

Phil, I really like your response to the NPOV-SPOV question. Your answer is easily the pace-setter so far; it captures all the proper nuance with admirable concision.--ragesoss 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Way to Amalthea

Can you please clarify why did you put a "cleanup fiction-as-fact" there? I honestly cannot see what in this little article demerits such classification. To me it looks like a pretty straightforward retelling of a plot, using only commonly used terms (the only term which is used in a slightly unusual way, "sail", is specifically explained) and no "perspective" at all. Just facts. Trapolator 01:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response was rather unhelpful, sorry. I don't see how this article is not compliant to this requirement: "a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional." It is a brief summary, and it is clearly defined as fictional in the first sentence ("a science fiction short story"). Short of prepending "In this fictional story" to each and every sentence and "fictional" to each noun, I don't see what might be done. Is this what you are proposing? Please offer some specific critique or remove your notice. Trapolator 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:IChrisI

Hi, IChrisI (talk ·  contribs) was recently autoblocked for sharing the IP address of Terryeo (talk · contribs). Since he was forthright about declaring that he was Terryeo's son before being challenged about it and looking over his editing history, I'm inclined to believe him so I've lifted the autoblock. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of user Terryeo

Hi Phil, would you please log your block of Terryeo in his Arb Com file? It would be good to have a history since there has been an ongoing problem with this user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo Vpoko 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phil. I noticed that the controversies about the Scientology articles have settled down over the last month. Now I know why. I thank you for your responsible administration. --Fahrenheit451 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Slightlyright

Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Wiki Template

Template:Freedom wiki With regard to this, just thought I'd nudge things along a bit. WAS 4.250 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of resistance in the past to using boxes for non-Wikimedia Foundation sites that look like the sister projects templates. This has come up often in template deletion. The objection is that having boxes set aside is an advertising tool which should be limited to Foundation projects. All others should use "standard" bullet-list style entries in "External links" (ala Template:Wikitravel). I'm not sure if the culture has changed lately to expand acceptance of non-Wikipedia boxed links, as I've been away from that argument lately. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Regarding fiction and B5

I agree that, where available, out-of-universe sources are welcome. A writer or commentator can discuss themes behind the character, and reveal aspects the audience never considered. Real-life issues with the actor/writer/publisher/studio also add to this understanding, as they might explain why a character takes an unexpected turn. But the character's direct actions, as portrayed in the fiction, must be the heart of the article - these extras only add to the understanding of said character. People can debate the motivations behind an action, but not without knowing the actions themselves.

As for the other B5 articles you've tagged for deletion (Turhan, Jason Ironheart, Pius XV, and Branmer), I agree that they should be combined on some sort of minor characters page - I'm thinking of a format right now. (Btw, were any other B5-related articles tagged for deletion, or speed-deleted, that I missed?)

Whether or not characters like David Sheridan (who stars in one novel, is mentioned in others, and happens to be the child of the two main protagonists) counts as minor, significant, or irrelevant is currently a matter of debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheridan, but it's not worthy of deletion simply because I can't name some out-of-universe sources off-hand. Once I have a minor characters list established, I'd like to setup a merge discussion and get the deleting threat out of the picture.

You mentioned the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) community standard as a reference. May I ask exactly how many people it took to reach this consensus? And whether those people had any involvement in the large number of fiction articles listed on Wikipedia? Given that the vast majority of fiction articles on Wikipedia don't follow this guideline, most fiction editors are only made aware of it when a page is tagged for deletion or reworking, and that there is a substantial debate going on at the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and on this very talk page, I'd suggest that this is a standard applied on the relevant community, not defined by it.

Like I said last time, I'm honestly impressed by your tenacity to "take on the Wikipedia challenge". However, a primary goal for any publication is internal consistency. With that in mind, might I suggest you take a look at some other characters from TV and literature - let's say CSI's Gil Grissom, ER's John Carter, and Stephen King's Paul Sheldon - and explain why they've escaped reworking or deleting tags, since they're primarily written with an in-universe perspective, and introduce hardly any out-of-universe information? This could prompt other people to take interest in the topic, and make for a more representative debate. Quack 688 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for retracting the deletion nomination, at least. But I have a few concerns regarding that external wiki. For one, all the links within the article are broken, since none of those articles exist on that wiki, with the exception of John Sheridan and Londo Mollari, who earn one-line bios. It's better to have all this information in one place than split it between two - and right now, between Wikipedia and that B5 wiki, the de facto primary source people use is Wikipedia. Before you take that statement as a challenge to single-handedly move the majority of Babylon 5 content to an inactive wiki simply because the odour of in-universe writing offends you (I noticed you've already started on the Susan Ivanova article), you should let the debate about in-universe writing on Wikipedia continue for a while longer.

I was going to repeat the need to apply your current standards equally to all works of fiction, to avoid any suggestion of impropriety, but I just noticed while writing this you've tagged the Gil Grissom article, so I applaud you for your intellectual honesty. I'm sure that if you tag a variety of notable fictional articles, you'll get a variety of complaints here. While quoting them the official "consensus", I'd like you to consider just how many people are needed to disagree with a "consensus" before it loses said status. Quack 688 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus", as I understood it, wasn't just based on the number of people, but on the issues they raised. Using the consensus to defend the existence of the consensus, and say it is beyond reproach, is circular reasoning. If you go into the reasoning by which that consensus was reached, that's a different matter.

Copying Wikipedia's B5 articles to an unmaintained wiki is equivalent to leaving someone out in the cold - an "indirect deletion". I don't believe it's responsible to move articles there en-masse unless you're prepared to maintain the wiki yourself or you believe in good faith that it will be maintained by others. Its current status suggest this is unlikely. Besides, other major fictional sci-fi shows have existing well-maintained wikis, yet still possess articles here, which include in-fiction sections. They can link to the external wiki if the external wiki contains extra information, and it is a reliable source (I would suggest that "well-maintained" is a criteria a website must meet to be considered reliable.)

You mentioned Fancruft - I looked it up and noticed this quote:

"It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion....

... Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion."

If fancruft is posted which is "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral", then it deserves to be deleted or reworked on those specific issues. However, by my reading of that essay, if an article passes those criteria, it shouldn't be deleted or moved off site using the fancruft excuse. I'm working this weekend, so I'll be out of touch for a couple of days, but like I said, I'd appreciate it if you let the debate play out a while longer.Quack 688 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction and Wikipedia comment

In your Fiction and Wikipedia post, you stated that nobody has written a high-quality out of universe article on a fictional topic. What about Padme Amidala, Jabba the Hutt, the final fantasies, and so on? — Deckiller 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while...

...but I've finally put this over at deletion review. You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion. (Note: I'm leaving this comment because you originally contested the re-closure.) --Czj 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checking to see if you missed this :) Ral315 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. Since you were one of the first candidates to register, I included some links which you provided on your questions page. You may want to check if you're OK with them. — Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Three revert reminder

Please be aware that you're pushing up on a "bright line" blocking clause with your reversions at Template:WikipediaVandalism. - 152.91.9.144 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comixpedia

The article was recently deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixpedia (second nomination). I'm thinking of opening a deletion review, but I'm trying to build a good case. At the minute, all I've got is Dirk Deppey citing it as "being the indispensable magazine for online comics" [4] and T.Campbell calling it "the most reliable source of webcomics news" [5]. Do you know of any paper references to it? Steve block Talk 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Got publishers weekly noting it as "General news and views about Web comics, including T. Campbell’s well researched History of Webcomics." [6] too. Steve block Talk 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Yeah, I was planning on deleting it now that I got home. It was due to repeated vandalism by Afrika paprika. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello. I would greatly value your critical perspective, opinion, or thoughts regarding this discussion about the use of section headings in film articles. Thank you for your time. —Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Able and Baker

Hi Phil! I see that Able and Baker is up for deletion again. I know that you had a certain interest in the matter previously. At present the nomination is based on lack of reliable sources for establishing notability, so you might want to provide some references indicating why you think this is notable. (That is of course, if your opinion on the article remains the same from a year ago.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the page to add the claim to notability that you make in the debate and the sources you used to find it, so that the article can stand on its own without you to defend it in debates? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How many sources are needed to establish notability for something? I am worried that we are applying a double standard here and favoring certain subjects over others, such as Lord of the Rings trivia over webcomics. Take a look at Old South Road as a perfect example, and compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd Boy (2nd nomination). Yamaguchi先生 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (5th nomination). --Kim Bruning 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Left another comment at the afd. I see you have edited the article with some mention of notability, but people who are less knowlegable (including myself) wouldn't be able to derive notability from that alone. Could you expand on this topic in some way? I know it can be hard to do when you're an expert. On wikipedia, I've been told "You're an expert, so you obviously have no clue!" (or words to that effect) more than once ;-) . In any case it might be wise to leave diff links to the edits you have made, so that people can see that you have made an effort to improve the article and move it outside the remit of AFD. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And another comment on AFD. Also carefully read the comments made by others, as they provide additional suggestions as to how to improve the article. Sorry to suddenly cause you work where the article authors didn't provide enough info. AFD has been getting a bit saner though, by the look of it.

Perhaps you can also find additional assistence wrt imrpoving the article at the webcomics wikiproject? --Kim Bruning 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

After further reading, I notice that you've been commenting on the quoted guideline (to wit: Reliable Sources. Is there a relationship between the AFD and your RS comments? Kim Bruning 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I don't know how often sane users show up on AFD anymore, so I was just dropping by to say I noticed several people are now taking the time to discuss with you. If you have a little time, would you care to answer? Probably most don't know about the RS issues you've been dealing with. I suspect it might be rewarding for someone to take the time and talk the whole situation through with some of these people, perhaps also outside RFA. I don't know if I actually have time to do that though, and I don't know your position as well as you do, of course. --Kim Bruning 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That sucks!  :-(

Oh well... I'm an eventualist, so my take is that one can always create a (properly referenced, as per guidelines, etc etc.) article at a later date. No irrevocable loss has occured.

Get well soon!

-- Kim Bruning 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! You told me you were feeling under the weather, and would not be continuing. At that point I dropped the matter on the floor. I assumed the article would be rewritten at some later date.

But you do seem to have found time to make a lot of noise on Deletion Review, which is a tad late. :-/ --Kim Bruning 09:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  08:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Njyoder

Do you know what this user's connection to Encyclopedia Dramatica is? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Steak and blow job day

Has been previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (Third Nomination). Is there new sourcing or such? JoshuaZ 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar

Hi Phil! I remember that you caused a stir with your statements over the proposed deletion of this article. (Over a year ago, can you believe it?) It is back on AFD, and I think some sources of notability to support your (and, apparently, Jimbo's) position may be in order unless your opinion has changed on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try to maintain a minimum level of wikiquette while discussing this afd. Do point out what articles this guy has written but please don't compose an increasingly sarcastic response to each delete vote rephrasing information that has already been given. Also, some of your comments border on a violation of WP:AGF. Cheers. Savidan 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up. Savidan 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was closed as delete, do not restore out of process, just place it on WP:DRV Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Cyrus Farivar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Cyrus Farivar is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Cyrus Farivar saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida

I noticed you disagreed with my reversion. I agree with you that if the edit belongs, it belongs where you placed it, and something along those lines could indeed improve the article in the place you put it. However I strongly think the quality of the contribution is poor and undeserving of retention. As an example I cite the following:

It is the text whose logos is a kind of "serious play" (cf. La pharmacie de Platon). However, possessing intelligence and erudition, Derrida nevertheless committed critical "gestures", which were both true and false at the same time; indeed so true and so false that they become both terms absolutely. If deconstruction were a valid concept, it would be the process of making terms in binary (true/false) bland and irrelevant, uninteresting to the new critique -- however by necessity la deconstruction must be part of its own critique, and therefore not a complete ("valid") concept in the traditional sense within Western metaphysics.

"It is the text whose logos," poor expression, incomprehensible. "Derrida nevertheless committed critical 'gestures'," convoluted gobbledegook. "If deconstruction were a valid concept, it would be the process..." incomprehensible. Etcetera. In short, I think the edit does "violence" to Derrida and to the entry, and should be removed. Mtevfrog 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; it should be dumped. But if you want to fix it, or tag it (not sure what that achieves, but hey), go ahead. Mtevfrog 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Blogging Tories

You have edited the article Blogging Tories. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rogue (musician)

Hi - just a quick note to mention that as Rogue (musician) is no longer protected we seem to be back to the "remove the name" business all over again. I'm not sure if it's worth looking at semi-protection again? --Mrph 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of User:Essjay/RFC deletion discussion

Hi, Phil. Could you explain a bit more why you feel that the deletion of User:Essjay/RFC is "not up for debate"[7]? It seems to me that the issue of whether the Wikipedia community's reaction to a major scandal should be visible to the public is very much up for debate. I'd like to restore the DRV section, but I don't want to wheel war/edit war/whatever it might be called. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already reverted the edit. This cannot become an edit war as deleting sections from deletion review is either accidental or vandalism. I shall assume good faith and accept it is the former. Regards - Munta 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an explanation somewhere for your actions? Despite what it says on your userpage, process is important in cases like this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to ax the deletion review of User:Essjay/RFC

Please, learn the lesson of the Daniel Brandt wheel war. Trying to kill off these discussions doesn't help. I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision#Proposed principles for better explanation than I could offer. 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: the prior section wasn't on the page when I started adding this one. GRBerry 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your admonition

Thank you for your kind advice. However, 1) is your personal opinion. Please support it with evidence. What's wrong with it, other than that you personally do not like it? 2) I am aware that this was edited in once before. I believe that person was absolutely correct. It is a complete embarrassment for me to see us using non-free media on the main page, particularly as there is a strong show of support for the proposal to ban it entirely. Also, please do not tell me it is not possible to have a free image; there are numerous shots of the stars and director on flickr and other sites that are not by the media companies that with some forethought someone who cared about this article may have asked them to freely license. Perhaps those who do not like the icon would have had sufficient incentive to make this request had this pressure been placed earlier. That someone was careless in placing it in the featured image box in the first place is no reason to uphold the status quo. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It amkes us look like we are waiting for someone to upload an image—well, yes, exactly, because actually we are. It makes us look "shoddy"—opinion. It's a nice-looking icon. "Sloppy"—a nearly-unsupportable opinion.

As for the tradition of granting Raul leeway, he has shown at numerous points throughout his history thoughtlessness regarding copyright and free licensing concerns; I do not defer to his judgment on pure tradition, and in this case I do not find his reasons compelling. "We have to do this thing because we have in the past" is pure madness. Yes, it had an hour of life left; I just got home; that should make no difference except that it will give people less chance to replace it with a free image. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You do have one major point right, though. The main page is about our image. Which is why we should not have non-free media there. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you overestimate the influence Raul654 wields. His position is not an official one, and believe it or not, sometimes he is wrong. If he makes a wrong decision, or a thoughtless one, we should all feel obliged to correct it. I see the value in coordination of the FA process, but one person's word here is not law. That he places images in FA blurbs without regard to whether they belong there is not reason to have them stay.

Also, you continue to press your unsupported opinion that it "made us look bad" as your only real justification. For one, I find this claim unbelievable. A nice-looking icon representing a film; it is not an unprofessional-looking image. It does not specifically depict the movie. You know what? We are looking for an image. Should we pretend to a level of completeness that we do not have, and furthermore showcase media that our project officially considers to be inferior and to be avoided where at all possible? That, since you care so much about image, that is the harm.

Or is Yahoo's image tarnished when they have their "no poster available" box up where they do not have a movie poster? Is IMDb's image tarnished where they use an image of a gold star and ask their audience to contribute photos where there is no photo for some actor? But we are so much more polished than they are, and that is the point of our site, of course.

Well, I care about image, too. I care about presenting to the world that we are the free encyclopedia, and I care about making it clear that we, rather than grabbing a quick-"fix" because some people think it looks nicer, will not showcase non-free work on our users' very first impression of the site. This is not my silly whim, Phil. Your characterization of my edit as "destructive" is wrong and insulting; I did notice your implication that you would block me, and as we both know this would be a pointless exercise in drama I think it ought to be beneath you to make it. Don't insult my motives or my intelligence by talking down from a supposed position of superiority. I am serious about this issue, and from the looks of things a significant portion of the rest of the community is too. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag at Category:Protected due to publicity

Another editor has added a speedy tag to the empty category Category:Protected due to publicity, which you created. --Eastmain 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protected due to publicity

Hi, you removed my speedy tag from Category:Protected due to publicity.

I'm not one to pick at process technicalities (which is a good thing, because you're not meant to remove speedy tags from pages you created, and nowhere in CSD C1 does it say an empty category is exempt from deletion if someone thinks there might one day be a page in it), but even putting aside lack of use – which I think is a good argument for the removal of any non-enyclopedic category – I genuinely do not see the need for it.

We don't protect pages pre-emptively, and thus we don't protect pages "due to publicity". We protect them due to vandalism (e.g. Wikipedia), and due to visibility (e.g. Main Page, Template:tl); of course, both of these things may arise because of publicity, but we wait for them to happen before protecting the page, not the other way around.

We have a number of categories for protected pages which are populated by templates – when protecting a page, people add the template that fits the protection reason. Looking at the templates in use, I see no gap in the list of protection reasons which needs filling; vandalism arising as a result of publicity should be treated in the same way as any other persistent vandalism from multiple users, and {{pp-vandalism}} is quite sufficient for that. Deciding whether vandalism to a page is actually caused by publicity or not seems to me an unnecessary distinction which in practise would likely be misapplied anyway.

I would appreciate an explanation of why you think there is a need for this category, and simply telling me to "be sensible" does not suffice. Thanks – Gurch 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The category dates back to the Siegenthaler incident, and was created specifically to accomodate the fact that the Siegenthaler article was going to appear on CNN that day, and it was imperative it not appear in a vandalized form (which would have been a disaster). Since we forsaw that being a problem in the future we created a protection template for it, along with all the fixings. The point is that if we know an article is going to make a high-profile appearance and we need to guarantee that it's pristine at that moment we protect it to ensure that.

It's a rare event, but it's one that absolutely should be planned for, and it makes a clear exception to the category policy, which was quite clearly intended to deal with dead categories, not peculiar administrative categories. Phil Sandifer 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is this template? I don't see it on Template:Protection templates or in Category:Protection templates. This sounds suspiciously like something you created for your own personal use, or the use of a small group of people, that administrators in general aren't aware of. This is never a good thing. Note also that things have changed since 2005, and in more recent cases (Colbert, for example) the situation has been dealt with simply by protecting the page as normal – Gurch 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see... AzaToth turned it into a redirect – which was the correct course of action, in my opinion, though he should probably have pointed it at the "full protection" template rather than the "semi-protection due to vandalism" one. I'll further reinforce the notion that things have changed since 2005 by pointing to the fact that it is now possible to set an expiry time for page protection, and the current series of protection templates have an expiry parameter intended to be used in such circumstances.

So. Suppose Jimbo was appearing on CNN tomorrow, and they were going to show the Foo article. An admin would hop over to the article, check it wasn't vandalised, protect it with the summary "Appearing on CNN tomorrow, needs to be free of vandalism", set the expiry time to two days in the future, and add {{pp-protected|expiry=17 April 2007}}.

Let's see if this is satsifactory. The page is certainly protected and free of vandalism. Newcomers can see that this is the case by looking at the template, and can see that they would normally be able to edit the page, and that if they wish to, they can come back in two days' time. Administrators or other experienced users wondering about the reason for protection can check the log and see exactly why it was protected. Was it even possible to specify a protection reason in the log at the time of the Seigenthaler incident? I seem to remember it wasn't – this alone seems to render a separate category and template unnecessary – Gurch 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to assume good faith - this is not "something created for my personal use." I haven't touched the template since the templates got re-organized, so I can't readily tell you where it went. (It was Template:P-protected which is now a redirect. As for Colbert, that was a different circumstance - the specific problem with Siegenthaler was that the page was going to be shown on CNN, live, in its current version, and Jimbo specifically protected it because he was going onto CNN. (You can find this in the protection history for the article if you want.) Colbert wasn't displaying a page live with advance warning. The idea of this template is so that we can take a page onto television without having to worry about it becoming a vandalism target - a huge deal with Siegenthaler because that was a major vandalism target at the time.

It's a rare case, as I said, but to speedy delete because it doesn't fit the rules exactly is an example of overly literally interpreting the rules at its worst. There may be reasons to remove the template and category, but they are not speedies by any useful definition of speedy. Phil Sandifer 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While not relevent to the point of the discussion, you may be interested to know that in fact I can't find that protection in the protection history for the article, because in May 2006, all previous log entries were quietly obliterated. See the log for yourself. While the page history extends back to December 2005, at that time page protections didn't also get an entry in the of the page history as they do now – so even the luxury of being able to view deleted edits wouldn't reveal it. My attempts to find the missing log entry on another page led to a dead end – and the discovery that Freakofnurture thinks it appropriate to store deleted page histories of controversial articles in a subpage of his userspace named "crap", but I'll let that drop.

So much for transparency.

Anyway, if you feel there is a need for the template and category, fair enough. I'm getting close to giving up on this category reorganization altogether, as it just takes too much effort to get anything done. As you're an administrator and I'm not, any attempt at a CfD would be an exercise in futility on my part (do you see now why I tried to have it speedied?), so I'll leave the discussion here. Thank you for your time – Gurch 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Surreal Barnstar for nominating Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals for deletion. Well done. Corvus cornix 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Recurring themes in Doctor Who continuity

Hi. Just so you know, I requested protection of the article (and The Lazarus Experiment) due to the rush of speculation added with John Simm being in the trailer at the end of tonight's episode. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

%s Redirect

I don't suppose you'd consider putting the RFD notice back in. Sure it breaks the page and is annoying, but without the notice, the whole process is hidden from the users. I mean, honestly, how many people read RFD regularly? ;-) I for one don't, and wouldn't have had known their was a discussion going on without the notice. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to, no. It's a shockingly bad thing to nominate, in that it is actively used by people to navigate into Wikipedia - enough so that a friend puzzledly asked me why her navigation to Wikipedia kept dumping her on the non-functioning redirect. It's bad enough that it got nominated - clogging the page with the redirect notice and thus breaking it, when the logic for keeping is "lots of people use it" is just silly. Phil Sandifer 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, that without the notice all the people who use it won't be able to see that it's use if up for discussion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've started a discussion on Talk:%s, please share your opinions there. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Forget recruiting, then. I'll do it myself, even if it takes all night. The one(s) removing the spoiler tags are the disrupters. They have no right to unilaterally impose their will of what wikipedia readers "should be" using wikipedia for. It's nannyism. It's offensive to the extreme. Wahkeenah 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like the nannies have won. The readers be damned. Wahkeenah 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bad idea, as it would be futile. I'm outnumbered by the nannies. Wahkeenah 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you dare lecture me about edit warring. If you'll notice, I have only reverted one article that those characters altered. A handful of editors started this, imposing their views and rendering it impractical to counter their actions. Wahkeenah 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The contempt for the readers shown in this spoiler-tag debate is just unfathomable to me. But it's clear y'all are going to get your way, regardless, so I may as well give up. Would that a fraction of the energy spent on stupid issues like this one would be spent instead on matters of sustaining quality... for example, urging the Grand Pooh-Bah to disallow IP addresses from wasting countless hours of everyone's time with their idiotic vandalisms. Wahkeenah 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are now practicing censorship yourself, on that discussion page. Fine. I'm done watching it. Wahkeenah 05:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there is nowhere else that I responded to the patronizing comments about "mollycoddling", which is arrogant-editor-ese for showing courtesy to the user. Meanwhile, someone else added my comments back, but it doesn't matter. You and your nanny friends have won. Wahkeenah 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)