Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 5

User:Sj/Archive/User Page Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

In January, we had a number of lengthy discussions about Esperanza, resulting in shutting it down after this debate, which was endorsed on DRV here. Shutting down involved deleting a number of subpages, some of which were further debated individually. The user page award program was deleted after strong consensus in this discussion.

Following the closing of Esperanza, the similar project Concordia was likewise shut down. Aside from that, there were a number of attempts to revive Esperanza in userspace, which were quickly removed. This is another such attempt. If people object to an award as strongly as they do here, it is inappropriate to keep it around in userspace. Hence I've deleted it, and since the person who put it there disagrees, I'm requesting deletion review.

I suggest that this is a blatant end-run around established consensus, and should be kept deleted. >Radiant< 09:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion – recreation of deleted and obviously inappropriate content in user space. He claims it's an "archive", but we generally don't "archive" deleted pages except when needed. As a sidenote, are you sure that DRV is the best place for this? IT has been deleted and restored, so perhaps an MFD would be better. Melsaran (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Melsaran, or speedy G4? Carlossuarez46 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Process violation – there are almost no excuses for speedily deleting pages found in someone's userspace; with a possible exception for bad-faith recreations of something that has been slated for deletion, say because it was harming other users. Finding someone's userpage that you don't like and deleting it without discussion isn't how things should happen on Wikipedia. Deleting someone's user subpage without telling them is just plain rude. +sj + 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Melsaran: what is 'inappropriate' about the content? It was decided that the user page awards should not exist as an ongoing process, not that the page couldn't be archived as a historical event. There are many other records of the user page awards -- all of the elements of the project that changed user pages, indicated approval to the users who won, and discussed what was going on around the process are kept as part of Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46: this is not a speedy candidate. G4 was not created for this. One of the problems here is overenthusiastic speedy deletions. +sj +

  SJ - it was discussed, on MFD. >Radiant< 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep restored As someone involved in the Esperanza mess, the consensus was not that we had to actually remove pages from being viewable, but simply to stop the activities of Esperanza as we knew it. Calling this an attempt to restore Esperanza is absurd and laughable. Esperanza is dead, there is no danger of it coming back, don't be a spaz because someone wants to keep something like this. This violates no policy or MfD consensus, and is perfectly acceptable. -- Ned Scott 20:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it violates this MFD consensus. >Radiant< 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It does no such thing. The majority of the people involved in that discussion didn't even express an opinion on this kind of preservation, and 'consensus' is not a term to be used so lightly. +sj + 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion BUT. The user page award deletion had strong consensus, and it is against policy to keep deleted content in userspace unless it's an article you're actively attempting to improve. However, if sj merely wished to keep the list of the nominees (and not the rest of it), which I'm guessing was his intention in archiving the page in the first place, I would consider that a significant enough change to qualify it for keeping. Some of them are pretty nifty userpages after all. --tjstrf talk 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think we need to evaluate if the consensus was really to strike this document from existence, or to stop the activities at hand. I did not participate in this specific EA MfD, but in others, when I had supported delete, my intentions were to simply stop the current activities. I think the same can likely be said for others. -- Ned Scott 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I find that, because *fD is one of the few ways for a subcommunity to express its opinions on how to stop or continue working on things in articlespace or any other namespace, many deletions are in fact this sort of expression of a community request that some activity stop. It is a pity that we are erasing interesting parts of Wikipedia history as a result; if we develop better social norms for saying "stop [but of course preserve edit and link history]" the community history will both be better recorded for the future and clearer to others who might head down the same path a second time. A similar pro blem comes up with articles that are about notable topics but keep getting deleted [so that new editors have no idea anything desirable or otherwise had come before... current deletion policy is broken in such a way that even the discussion about those pages is deleted, and *fD discussions are hard to find] +sj + 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep restored - this is all about following the letter of policy without any regard whatsoever for the spirit. As Ned says, the Esperanza pages were deleted to stop the activities of a group that (for all its good intentions) was becoming dangerously cliquish, insular and bureaucratic. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether a respected user with a huge history of valuable contribution to the project can or should keep archives of the page (and its history) in his userspace if he chooses. The policies for keeping userpages trimmed were intended to prevent people (especially people who don't contribute to the encyclopedia) from abusing the webstorage, trying to play WikiMySpace, or engaging in activities that have nothing to do with the project -- not to be wielded without judgment against historical records that are not being used. And as a complete separate issue, why on earth would you delete the page before simply leaving a note on sj's talk page inquiring about why he was keeping it, and explaining why you thought it didn't belong there? Policy should never trump courtesy, and aside from certain urgent issues of privacy or copyright violation, there is no situation so pressing that Wikipedia will be harmed by the time it takes you to leave a message and wait for a reply. Can we please try to show a little more respect for each other? — Catherine\^talk 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What about this MFD, which is not about ESP but specifically about this page? >Radiant< 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And see my comment above about a consensus to stop the activity or to strike the document itself. We wanted to stop the activity, and it has. There's no need to get your panties in a bind because someone wants to keep the technical document. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep restored -- for goodness' sake. This content isn't actively harming anyone; it's not libel, or a copyvio. It is a small piece of Wikipedia's history that Sj felt like preserving. As others have noted above, it was likely the activity going on in Esperanza that was controversial, not the actual page. Additionally, it's not just out of process, it's extremely rude behavior to delete pages in someone's userspace -- nine months after the original debate! -- without notifying them first... something that Sj had posted a note specifically asking people to do, which was ignored. Many of us keep drafts of articles and other content that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia or even the project-space proper in our userspace, for notes, reminders, workspace and preservation purposes; I don't see how this case is different. To quote Kim Bruning in the orginal MFD... "In fact, it might be unwise to remove pages representing systems at all, as they are a part of wikipedia history." -- phoebe/(talk) 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• (and another quick) Comment -- in the MFD the majority of the comments were about deleting the process, not objecting to the actual content of the page. The process, as I'm sure we can all agree, is dead and gone, and has been the entire time sj has kept this page in his userspace. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Eh, keep restored. That bad idea has been shut down completely and this page says right there at the top that it is being kept for historical purposes only. I don't see the problem. Mangojuice^talk 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep restored. The statement that "this is another such attempt" [to revive Esperanza in userspace] is ludicrously false. Mike R 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not so sure that deleting a project or process on Wikipedia (even one as cliquish, bureaucratic, and ridiculous as Esperanza) necessarily stops it or deletes the process. This is because someone could just as easily have sourced Esperanza off of Wikipedia. Other than that, if the process has been shut down aboard Wikipedia, then well and good; I have no objections either to keeping this user page deleted or to restoring the page (or to keeping it restored or deleting the page... whatever). — Rickyrab | Talk 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Police Department in media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Most of these "in popular culture/in media" articles are actually just endless lists of minor mentions in film's and video games. That's the way this article was when the AFD started, but I rewrote it twice in the course of the AFD. Since I did the first rewrite [1], there were a total of five people commenting; my own recommendation to merge, DGG's !vote to keep [2], Otto4711's reaffirmation of his "delete" !vote above, Dannycali's !vote to delete [3], and Jersey Devil's !vote to delete and place "all relevant info...in the LAPD article." The last !vote isn't an option of course, as the GFDL doesn't permit "delete and merge". Taken together, these comments after the first rewrite indicate there was no consensus to delete. No one commented after the second rewrite [4], which incorporated a non-fiction book about Dragnet and a film review by Roger Ebert. Consensus in this AFD was skewed towards the first version of the article, which was a crappy list, instead of the final version, which was prose with two references. Prose sections about representation in popular culture are well-accepted, even part of some featured articles. This article should be restored and merged into LAPD. Chaser - T 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Joining DGG below, all I'm really asking for is what Arkyan suggests, letting me restore what I created and merge it into the article. Heck, if people want to say "endorse deletion but permit use of the material", that would satisfy me. I wrote it. I'll go dig it out of deleted history if a consensus establishes that using it is OK.--Chaser - T 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. The article was an unreferenced list of any and all popular media appearances by the LAPD. I think you were on the right track to improve the article by changing it to prose. Also, the topic is a good one, so I don't have a problem with it being recreated. The best way to go about this is to have the article Userfied to a user subpage of yours, work on the draft article, then see if the deleting admin will post the material. If not, return to DRV, citing "Substantial new information" as a reason to overturn the AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse/Userfy - USERFY to a subspace for anyone that wants to merge this information back, as I feel like the consensus was the merge or delete. Corpx 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and userfy per above comments. Otto4711 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for continued discussion. I wish the result had been a keep, but there was no consensus to keep. Nor was there consensus to delete. It was quite clear that the people having the different positions did represented two totally different lines of thought on how to handle topics such as this. As Chaser mentioned, the discussion was still continuing at the end as the article was being modified. A no-consensus close would also have been correct , and really amounts to the same as Relist. I note that the closer gave no explanation of his reasoning. DGG (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Chaser's version -- changed to this, on the basis of the arguments below, asa more practical way of doing things. I realise relisting would not necessarily solve anything but likely just continue more unproductive discussion. Since he has a reasonable good article, let him restore it. If it gets nominated again, we can proceed from there. Personally, I'd think of such a nomination as a WP:POINT expression of the opinion that WP should not cover these topics no matter how well documented and written. The question of whether to merge it with the main article would not require AfD. DGG (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and merge per Chaser, who really did do a substantial job revising the article during the course of the AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Chaser's version only. It was a total rewrite so there's no worry of licensing issues and there was enough consensus to delete the list version. I believe Chaser did a good job of addressing some concerns and his total rewrite deserves more consideration than it was given - discussion regarding whether to merge it into another article can proceed normally. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Afd is not a vote and the closer got the result right through policy and reading the arguments on both sides. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What policy? WP:NOT doesn't apply to the last version.--Chaser - T 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and merge view - now a perfectly encyclopedic section and it is short enough that adding it to the main article wouldn't overbalance it (unlike the ghastly Los Angeles Police Department#LAPD Operations section but that's another story!). My view is that sections should only be broken out when they get too long for the main article. Bridgeplayer 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it started in the main article, but got too long. [5] It only got short again a few days ago.--Chaser - T 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and merge. Chaser's re-write renders the AfD moot. This is a Good Thing. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and expanded this section of the LAPD article with the content I wrote. I'll leave it to the closing administrator to decide whether the AFD covers this addition and if that presents any GFDL issues (it shouldn't, since I wrote the new version of the deleted article).--Chaser - T 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't read the AFD close enough, was closing late at night, sorry about that, Undelete Chaser vertion only and redirect because of GFDL issue. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess in that case I should have asked you first. Sorry about that.--Chaser - T 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A classic hoax unfairly lumped in with the mass deletion of the mostly forgettable BJAODN. It had been moved to Hangar65's page after it was exposed and deleted from article space. The husk of BJAODN, Wikipedia:Silly Things, currently links to this now-empty location. --zenohockey 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - This is a request to review Radiant!'s speedy deletion of User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. The speedy deletion reason given was "(1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War, (2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th Nomination), and (3) this user doesn't exist." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Hi zenohockey. Would you please comment on the three reasons Radiant! gave for the deletion and indicate why they do not apply to the delete material. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason #1 (and its laughable timing) is the reason the "article" deserved to be kept around in the first place. Reason #3 is irrelevant; restore it to its own page on the Wikipedia namespace or on a subpage of the restoring admin's userpage. The users voting to overturn below deal with Reason #2 nicely. --zenohockey 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and restore. Yes, the vast majority of BJAODN was just.. blah, and most of it won't be missed. However, not all BJAODN are created equally. Since there was so much of BJAODN I can understand how this got caught up in the mass deletions, but the Upper Peninsula War is something different. The first AfD supported preserving this bizarre and well written hoax, unlike most of BJAODN which had been added by anyone for any reason (funny or not, most often not). The MfD actually resulted in keeping this page as a historical example of BJAODN, specially done so by the MfD closer Phil Sandifer who felt it was reasonably acceptable. The third concern is an easy fix, move it to someone else's subpage. I'll volunteer if no one wants to take it. So basically, reasons 1 and 2 do not support deletion, and 3 is fixed with a page move. -- 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, do we really need to discuss BJAODN again every single day? Consensus was overwhelmingly to delete on the MFD, which was upheld on deletion review. >Radiant< 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Flawed reasoning. One, the MFD did not support deleting this page, it actually resulted in keeping it. Two, this is not a discussion to bring back BJAODN. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • • The BJAODN discussion and decision were flawed; using the wrong tool and the wrong forum to evaluate a massive number of user edits. It should be no surprise to see that discussion come up again and again. The decision to delete BJAODN runs against community consensus, but was repeatedly brought up until one vote ran against it; though I would love to see a serious community-wide discussion prove me wrong. +sj + 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the DRV you link to does not include the user page we are talking about, and in no way supported the deletion of this page. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • All of that is about people keeping or recreating BJAODNs in their userspace, like they tried with Esperanza. This is no different. >Radiant< 08:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • We're not trying to recreate BJAODN with this page. This was not deleted as a result of the MfD, and was not an attempt to get around the MfD. -- Ned Scott 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The deletion notice was posted on User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. Upper Peninsula War was a redirect to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War during the deletion discussion. User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War was deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Consensus was to remove it from article space and salvage it elsewhere. Plain and simple, the AfD does not support this deletion by Radiant, nor does the MfD for BJAODN. This is a very clear fact. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, restore and move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Silly Things. Like Ned said, the MfD didn't specifically mention this page; unlike most of BJAODN, it has history preserved, and it is actually funny (in the sense of being an elaborate and subtle hoax). Duja► 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn though I am not sure just where this should go. There was certainly no agreement at the MfD that every individual instance of an item that had been at BJAODN was necessarily to be deleted--and this particular one was specifically mentioned as one to be kept. I strongly disliked the original page(s) as a compilation, but that doesn't mean all the content was bad. DGG (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Just for the record, I deleted this from the article namespace but userfied by request due to comments at the AFD and the fact that BJAODN-gate hadn't happened yet so it was still okay to preserve jokes as far as I knew. I have no opinion on it now, other than that it's a great hoax article. --W.marsh 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, it seems that a switch-a-roo was pulled. Tjproechel created User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War on 00:10, 2 May 2007. Qmwne235 posted a nomination fo deletion notice on User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War at 21:02, 9 May 2007. As far as I can tell, the page never existed in article space but was a redirect to userfied material, namely User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. W.marsh's userification to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War was on 15:36, 15 May 2007, thirteen days after Tjproechel had already created User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it was in the article namespace... see the log at [6] and the edit history. When I userfied it, I moved the whole thing to user space. --W.marsh 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It is still okay to preserve jokes. A decreasing percentage of the community visits MfD and DRV, however, so not all decisions here reflect community guidelines. +sj + 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War resulted in deleting it from article space, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th Nomination) didn't result in deleting this page at all, and it doesn't matter that Hanger65 doesn't exist, there's that handy little "move" button on the top of every page. Melsaran (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep deleted and speedy close - Tjproechel created this subpage on 00:10, 2 May 2007 as a non existent user subpage. The deletion notice was posted on User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. Upper Peninsula War was a redirect to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War during the deletion discussion. The May 9 to May 15 deletion discussion was about the user subpage. User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War was deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War. The closer interpreted that discussion correctly. Thus, endorse the close. In addition to being an archived private copy of previously deleted content in violation of Wikipedia:User_page, no administrator can restore the material since it resided on a sub page of a non existent user. Since this DRV cannot result in anyone restoring the material, this DVR should be speedy closed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard anyone think up to keep something deleted. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you know of any other user pages of non-existing users being used to house BJAODN material? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you know what a move button is? -- Ned Scott 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It would be inappropriate for an administrator to restore material to a user page of a user that does not exist. There is no move button for pages that have been deleted. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It's perfectly appropriate for an admin to restore such a page, and absolutely no policy or guideline says otherwise. Such a rule doesn't even make sense, and wouldn't help anything. Don't pull rules out of your ass. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I've just registered the account User:Hanger65, so it now exists. -- Hanger65 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
              • And yeah, that was me. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, Jreferee, but I must also say I find your reasoning here a bit strange. We're not a bureaucracy here; I'm sure that (if consensus so decrees) we can undelete it, move it, and delete the redirect if it bothers anyone, without anyone suing us over bending our own rules a bit. >Radiant< 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. A well known page, deserves to be preserved. Users should have discretion over preserving essays, jokes, and community archives in their own space (as long as they don't harm other users). +sj + 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse If article is to be kept it needs to be elsewhere like say Uncyclopedia.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Yes, we must nuke ALL humor because the MfD decision was to delete SOME of BJAODN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The MfD for BJAODN was for BJAODN subpages, correct? Isn't this technically not a subpage of BJAODN, and therefore excluded from deletion as a result of that MfD? If not, I suggest sending it to MfD, because this DRV will be based mostly on the BJAODN MfD closing,and it shouldn't be if it was excluded from that deletion. If it is considered only a subpage of BJAODN, I still suggest sending it to MfD, because if I recall correctly, this was a GFDL compliant page, and a rather well known one, and would be better served by community consensus on this page specifically. i ^said 04:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Well known, pretty funny, and not subject to all the arguments that were put forward for deleting BJAODN -- it's not a subpage, and we know where it came from. This was actually singled out to stay on the BJAODN page when all the rest of it was deleted. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per others. Yamakiri 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Post page on a personal wiki and create link to it on BJAODN - err, Wikipedia:Silly Things. Why? Because then it wouldn't be using up as much Wikipedia space and it would not need to go through stuff such as DRV and MfD; thus, it wouldn't waste our time in such processes. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff will still be on the WP servers regardless of whether it's 'deleted' or not. 86.137.123.74 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not as visibly, my dear anon, not as visibly. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - I definitely meant to keep this when I was closing the BJAODN close, and so there's no useful grounds for speedying I can see. Phil Sandifer 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Radiant! deleted many more of these pages[7], what to do with those? Melsaran (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Dunno. Start another DRV? (But wouldn't that just give the community more agita?) — Rickyrab | Talk 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Should anyone care about a given one of these enough to take it to DRV, I would support undeleting. Phil Sandifer 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• undelete' hilareous. The majority of BJAODN was nonsense but this is cool. I'd be happy to make it a subpage of mine!--Phoenix 15 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion In principle, I think maintaining hoax articles anywhere on Wikipedia -- no matter how funny -- risks compromising the integrity of the project. The tiny giggle this thing provides isn't worth the confusion it could cause if some newbie or search-engine visitor took this seriously. Xoloz 03:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What are your feelings on WP:APRIL then, where some of our April 1st jokes (basically, hoaxes) were written by some of our best and highly involved editors? -- Ned Scott 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Less adamant, because April's Fools traditions exist in the most respectable of places -- spaghetti tree -- but similarly displeased. I'll note that the more elaborate April Fools jokes are older, when Wikipedia was more insular, and that the tradition has waned lately, as three million editors each making a day's worth of jokes could sink the project. Xoloz 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)