User:Jahiegel/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(For Bureaucrats' noticeboard re SUL) Those were surely my thoughts, and I continue to think, as many, that the renaming here was contrary to the general understanding of the meta and en.wiki communities of the role of a steward, but it should probably be observed that that may not be strictly true; but it should probably be observed that language to the effect that stewards may act was inserted into the stewards policy upon SUL's being rolled out in March 2008; situated as this clause is , one gathers that it is . I am quite confident that there does not exist either on meta or here a consensus for such a broad operation, and in the absence of everyhting else, it would seem clear (whether a steward might be expected to know that is something else). One thing about which I am unclear is whether knew or whether —because I'm too tired to look—but I would suggest that the former scenario would, w/r/to Joe 03:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose (goat) (2nd nomination))

(For User talk:Jimbo Wales re ArbCom and ED) (a) community could get rid of, contrary to what Jimbo says (no authority any longer); (b) change underlying policy (as when congress changes statute/constitution); can change anything but foundation principles, with provision that past consensuses are harder to overturn b/c they were invoked by people who contributed to present content;;no en.wiki exceptionalism about construction and authority of ArbCom...no way they can keep banned unless have extra info...absolutely w/o discretionary power...have to ahve a way to determine and impose consensus, not make own

(For Wikipedia talk:School threats) to Celarnor, to whom also to offer compliments: for the foundation, just like blp; donations;;;of course not report (no particularized interest)

(For User talk:FCYTravis) As ever, I find myself situated opposite you with respect to a BLP issue (that's why I want my newspaper to publish the names of rape victims, etc., because I'm interested in knowing, and I apprehend no reason, except for fealty to moral schema, to be concerned about the harms that might befall (frankly, I think such to be , and I would hope that you'd have gotten past that--progressive, like people but generaly recongize that individuals are worthless ), and your sense of harm-limitation is more extreme than that I know of most;;;;keep saying real life like that matters that's how people from hicktown West virginia talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=211778064 no we can't because this is a consensus-based operation .. we don't need to protect rights .. but if so we must adopt by a measure and make clear that it is beyond edit .. did begin w/Jimbo but as Doc points out he doesn't have power .. can't adopt by consensus w/o telling people is beyond

(For User talk:Martinp23, re ED RfArC) This was my thought precisely; very well put. I have no doubt that , either because the ArbCom will construe policy as the community or because the community will act to overrule, either with their consent or without, FT2 aggrandizing position (NYB as well) very nice meandering interpretation of his own beliefs...judicial activism (mixed beliefs but primacy of community...if we've shown we can't intepret policy, that's fine...but tehre are those who think it violates WP:HARASS, etc., as if the purpose is irrelevant...and they are a distinct minority, and we don't ignore consensus except if contrary to foundation policy

(For Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics) NBA family = 26k kids

(For MediaWiki talk:Spam blacklist) post chronicle meets certain criteria but not others

(For User talk:El C) reply to him and Sqbox like cats why so wrong on blp, etc.

(For Coppertwig) desktop discussion of net effect of disruptive, etc., and why okay to coddle disruptive editors (way too many admins who go other way; also, if they're disruptive and jettisoned rightly the net effect might be okay in long run)

(For ED link RfAr) community has ultimate sovereignty to interpret and apply policies....it seems quite clear that most support inclusion of link....you guys don't make policy, you remanded to community...clearly there is no place for you to insert your views...comm has overr

(For AN/I thread re Betacommand) In fact, that's not quite right, either as a matter of what . We evaluate whether to block a user or to suggest that he/she be separated in the context of the net effect. Now, it often happens that those who good stuff (JzG, whom I mention only because he comes up in dsicussions like taht) aren't, and I, for one, have long suggested that the project would be better for his ...great FA editor can pick 10 to jettison if no bad effect....and the community can choose to overlook...it hasn't here, but the idea is that more admins are on his side

(For Encyclopedia Dramatica deletion review) We will certainly link to the site in any article about it, consistent with our practice and common sense. It is beyond the ambit of ArbCom, of course, to make decisions about content, and, in any case, the community have long since (it would be altogether bizarre not to link), where the purpose is to attack or disruptive, not because it's encyclopedically valuable. Even as that would have been true, and it cannot be taken seriously One recognizes that, justifiably or not, you have particularly strong;;;you may try this again, but will reject and in any case we can overrule, as we did;;;"d to refrain from idly or frivolously making references to malicious sites"

(For AN/I thread re Swatjester and Bstone)

(For Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#User:Sceptre) "Net effect" is quite probably the proper standard by which we ought to evaluate requests for rollback (as, well, we ought to evaluate everything here; we, for instance, should sysop anyone the net effect of whose being an admin is adjudged by the community as likely [to whatever specific degree one might view appropriate] to be positive, although I recognize that we've gone afield of that standard [IMHO, to our detriment]), but I don't quite see that it's clear that the good Sceptre does with rollback outweighs the bad. It is (rightly or wrongly) disruptive to use rollback in instances , an dit is wrong for us to have to continue. If he wants to fight vandalism, he can do that with twinkle, etc., and I'd say rollback with an explicit promise that for nothing else (if BLP, do by hand, if OR, do by hand, if its unconstruciteve but unintentionally so, by hand...and if you don't do it, won't protest)

(For User talk:UrbanRose) Because of his particular (one would think that would counsel his avoiding the issue altogether, and that his repeated inability to do so might speak ill of his self-control, but) history with ED, Sceptre seems generally. He has , but the community seem to have, as is their right, to determine that his is not disruptive. I emphatically disagree with that conclusions and;;;grew up deleting daniel brandt creating ed, although very different reasons

(For User talk:JoshuaZ) Hmm, I must be missing something; I read as explicitly rejecting, but it's usually not (never?) a good idea for the ArbCom, in the absence of its, and we know this because he's never alone or never more

(For User talk:FloNight, viz., to Lawrence, w/whom also to dispute "What? The decision was made that there is to be no Daniel Brandt per DRV.") I'd submit that a majority (and probably a much greater fraction) of those who continue to dispute the disposition of the Daniel Brandt redirect (and, one supposes, who seek to make a case for the inclusion of DB on the Brandt dab page) do so not out of any particular animus toward Brandt or even with respect to the long history between Brandt and the project (and its individual editors); . I, for one, even as I , became dissatisfied with his, for various reasons that I need not to outline fully, did not support him and think his departure indeed to be a good thing. and I don't begrudge. But I am a (so if they do so it's because hios BP ios contarry to ours)...

(For TOV straightaway)

  • That is finally the road down which we'll have to go, I think. It is clear that there exist editors who think it important to contact authorities when threats of violence are essayed—it is, of course their right in their capacities as individual citizens both so to believe and so to act—and some who don't think it particularly useful to involve real-world authorities in issues that appear unlikely to present real-world problems—or, at the very least, to make public such interventions, which publicization is seen by some as likely to invite disruptive vandalism (toward which RBI and BEANS are usually adduced)—or who, as I, cannot understand why the prospect that harm might befall someone in whose being well he or she has no particularized interest so exercises some individuals or why those who pay the taxes that fund the operations of various law enforcement authorities essentially counsel the use by those authorities of resources in a fashion widely out-of-proportion [they're not specially qualified to ]). People, then, will, rightly or wrongly, be reporting threats to applicable authorities, and in order that on-wiki disruption should be minimized and that we should not look altogether silly by reporting the same thing to the same many times over, there should probably be. I'm a bit disconcerted by the prospect (if someone wants information, but that's usually only required for investigation not for prevention) that others will do, so I would recommend that we simply put a place where you note that you have called about a given threat. otherwise should be WMF doing it
  • But one gathers that you recognize, at least, that there exists significant disagreement amongst both the populace at large and our community of editors about the moral issues you, as many others, regard as settled; I (as, I know, many others), for instance, would be altogether disinclined to intercede to report to law enforcement a threat, and surely any speculative inexplicit threat, the carrying out of the action underlying which would not seem to pose any problem for anyone is whose well-being I should have any particularized interest. Too, for those of us who anti-government

to some provincial moral code

  • (on "a felony") Not that it's particularly relevant, but because this continues to persist (New mexico) where intent is to ...versus legit statement of fact...civil commitment...over internet (WI guy)...federal crime...finally, no way to prove we saw it...just like if written on wall...do they want us to go through and look?

(For User talk:Caribbean H.Q.) (a) tax money, (b) free speech (felony under federal law); don't always agree w/you

(For Vicki Iseman DRV) Endorse closure I join in John's reasoning on the whole, and, and there is nothing to suggest...a redirect is appropriate

(For User talk:Carnildo) Hoping you'll pardon my intrusion, I would observe that your view is shared by many, including some who, as I, haven't taken any particular position on the underlying issue of whether the community, lest the project should (rightly or wrongly) fall into disrepute, should proscribe on-wiki professions of support for pedophilia (however improperly the term itself or advocacy thereof might be understood) or ban editors who make such professions—certainly I abhor the moral panic and McCarthyism that you rightly decry, but I recognize that the reaction of many in society to , and so , just as we might any number of expressions of views that), but who are disquieted by an overexpansion by the ArbCom of its role and a of the community as the ultimate promulgator of policy, except as regards (also, the suggestion that on-wiki is bad is understandable). In this instance, though, the ArbCom has been, it is, I think, fair to say, given that role by Jimbo, before m:foundation issues and our practice were (finally) amended to suggest that, except to the extent, Jimbo has no. Basically civil disobedience community can decide...

(For User talk:128.2.152.135) Thanks for applying the more specific template; I had jimbo

(For Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 30) Overturn deletion If one believes the AfDs to have basically should be undeleted and tehn this restarted...again, this isn't rpocess wonkery...even if no consensus, that means the commiunity has cosndiered and rejected...speedy is for unequestionable BLPs but that may because I disagree with the underlying polciy and the delete now ask questions later...has always meant was not deleted after

(For AN) User:Cyde/Weird pictures; also to B not publishing b/c simply rearranging unless uploader

(For Deborah Jeane Palfrey) Full protection absolutely unnec and overreaching

(For Talk:Celebrity sex tape) Actually list of not as notable; it's the concept of the celeb sex tape, which is treated on its own in secondary sources, etc. (and to sceptre, viz. on auburnpilot's talk: Jimbo's word was law, and his did affect, but we've made changes (look, Doc says). The community might disagree with Jimbo (someday it might go back to pre-BLP days and rid itself entirely of do no harm--board will do))

(For Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Philosopher, and, it appears, User talk:Kmweber or the AN/I thread thence linked) I can't imagine that anyone so unfamiliar with RfA as to be unaware of would particiapte in one, and, in any case, we could. If a candidate, I would be exceedingly concerned; I don't edit but you should pretty much know everything;;;;it is generally agreed that it is vote-like, adn we don't want them discounted (don't need agree with it to make it valid...all those things like edit count;;;;infrequent user bu still read AN, ANI, VPP, mailing list, RFA, DRV every day...usually more porcess-irented at RfA; and if you're a new user, you're not going to challenge another editors in;;;;on kurt...primacy of community...can require whatever it wants...CONSENSUS governs (can do something really stupid)...also, DGG is on your side...basically for someone of inclusionist persuasions, only bad thing is if it's in absence of something else; new users are going to be in a fight w/which they're not acquainted

(For Talk:Genie (feral child)) difference between concealed and not reported...just as some things newspapers used to conceal now are reported;;DGG and JoshuaZ (with whom I am on the inclusionist, anti-BLP side) are correct as regards current policy...still at a loss to understand why wouldn't publish (I would want my newspaper too), other than out of fealty to some provincial moral scheme beyond which one hopes we might have grown...not as if any harm will be done by searching and (not really adult?) so no risk of ID theft, etc., or of her even understanding

(For Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators [where also to rework FT2's additions for grammar and syntax, if not relative to substance]) Of course, that's not strictly true; nothing, save Foundation issues (or, one supposes, anything that the Board of Trustees or its designee determines to be of similar significance, as, I suppose, the fundamental nature of any given project [a project probably can't be morphed by consensus into a repository for content properly situated at another Foundation project]) is immutable, and the community are entitled to modify all else, by consensus, in whatever fashion they see fit

(For Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ian) Brion has observed that preservation of deleted pages is not (intended to be) permanent

(For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg [re retagging issue]) My concerns, for some reason, aren't wholly allayed, and so I hope you'll indulge one further question. you knew that it was expanded do you not think can improve and then remove tag would you readd I mena I'm a process guy, but that's whne rremoving content not when adding,w whne blokcing nto whne unblcking probably support anyway, but mindless reverting is really bad (I confess a few times I did it), and it is that mentality that pervades in admins (that may not be your whole corpus)

(For User talk:Doc glasgow [or, now, User talk:Bearcat]) A perfectly viable solution is to undelete the article and protect it as a stub; just as we don't (usually) bother to remove copyvios from page histories, we (I continue to fail to understand why , then you can protect it, but allow people to try to source and sometimes any is good); that's why we don't delete unless every single thing that it can't pass A7 Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages (inactive but is still policy) and where do you get hte idea admins...BLP admins rejected, all users equal...ArbCom was wrong presumptio not reversed

(For ANI re User:Hopiakuta) That's true, to be sure, but if it happens that our difficulty interpreting his mode of communication becomes so significant that the net effect on the project of his contributions proves negative (if, that is, his contributions to mainspace are outweighed)

(For ANI re opening of IRC to non-admins [to Bstone]) Well, administrative tools are of no particular use in one's being able readily to address IRL issues (although certainly the checkusers or Foundation staff whose attention one might seek to get happen to be administrators and perhaps active), and AN and ANI are the repository of reports of threats of violence only because they are widely watched and are suited well to the coordination of activities (or, at the very least, of the publicization of one's having reported a threat, lest multiple editors should report one particular threat to the same authority), and admins are certainly, even as they may be perceived by some as the "face of Wikipedia", not imbued with any particular authority, expertise, or responsibility to address threats of violence (after all, one of the reasons that the elevation to guideline or policy of any prescriptive form of TOV failed to command a consensus of the community is that the community ). In fact, I rather thought that the, and, at worst, to have some, so that those who are (for reasons that continue to escape me) inclined to;;;;if it's to minimize disruption on the project; if it's to suggest that the community think there to be value;;;;and admins surely aren't . TOV, of course, is not (and will never be) policy, mainly because, and so while it's fine, we don't want to give it any imprimatur of the community's has continually rejected any formal (because some of us don't believe they should be reported, and some of us are more concerned about the project's reputation and

more generally, whether anything large at which real-time discussion occurs can be keep private/secret

(For User talk:JoshuaZ and ANI [re Brandt/JoshuaZ]) see desktop notes

(For Werdna's RfBAG) b/c respects soverignty of community to dictate how rights will be conferred (almost as bad as IAR for admins--Danny) :)

(For AN re Wikiproject physics) That's quite right, although The way is

(For Giovanni di Stefano AfD [to-wit, re issue of ArbCom's prospective involvement]) And no one, to be sure, disputes that it is the absolute right of the Foundation 9a , to act as it likes)

(For Wikipedia:Adminship poll)

(For Image:Modern autopsy.jpg)

(For User talk:Nousernamesleft) re speedy of User:Epass (blank user pages fine; user req?)

(For Princess Eléonore of Belgium's DRV) Endorse closure Dave and Blue state the issue quite properly and, indeed, (best argument of late and proper understanding of exactly what DRV is all about

(For WT:BLP re presumption reversal) amazed that supported...why not wait for people to complain, because we don't want to remove ...not where notability concerns are raised, but only where BLP (I mean, there are tons of BLPs--athletes, etc.--that close as no consensus) OTOH, it has already been done where deleted per BLP...plenty of noncontroversial and don't attract vandalism and aren't problems sports and politics edit or talk about surprised b/c optout rejected and shifting back normally reflexively against (so what?) but I do obey that we care about subjects usually contemptuous of BLPers, but mean seriously to discuss this here subject request will be mandatory delete (b/c enough voters to make no consensus) nothing to suggest that certain stubs, etc., that can be expanded get vandalism...at least if can say nothing not delete but redirect so that it can be a source for something later

(For Coren's RfBAG) agree with "I'm not sure I get your point..."

(For User talk:Bellwether BC re Riana's RfB) I wasn't able to address your question before the RfB was closed, but I nonetheless appreciate the question. The short answer, to be sure, is "yes, in an ideal world RfAs would be closed strictly by percentage"; I am amongst those who think that RfA ought to be a vote. Our present system is, of course, a bit more complex, but even it permits bureaucratic discretion only to extend to the ascertaining of whether a consensus exists for promotion. When one closes an XfD, he does so in the context of underlying policy (it is not, it should be said, for a closing administrator to close against an apparent consensus except where those !voting on the numerically prevailing side do not purport to apply policy or do so plainly erroneously; in the latter case, of course, relisting/extending is appropriate, lest the outcome of an insular discussion should be generally contrary to norms to which many editors have acceded), but, WP:AAAD notwithstanding, there do not exist policies that reflect the views of the community's with respect to which arguments are persuasive and which ought to be rejected straightaway, and so a bureaucrat is not entitled to reject those !votes that are inconsistent with his personal sense of that on which adminship discussions ought to focus or that he thinks to be frivolous. It may well be appropriate for the community, as an RfA or RfB proceeds, to reach a consensus that certain specific !votes are to be discounted (the community, for instance, have, rightly or wrongly, more-or-less decided that Kmweber's "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger" are insubstantial and arbitrary and ought therefore not to be accorded little weight) or that general classes of !votes are plainly disfavored, and, indeed, it is because RfAs and RfBs operate under such a system now that we rightly term them "!votes" and not "votes", but it is never appropriate for a bureaucrat to substitute his/her judgment about the value of votes for that of the community, who have yet, it must again be noted, to adopt as policy (or to have developed in practice that might be codified in policy, which theoretically is, after all, descriptive) any grand framework pursuant to which the value of various !votes might be determined (I am not, I suppose, declaring that, in the context of RfAs and RfBs, consensus is numbers, since qualifiers ["weak", e.g.] and trends [as, for instance, when something particularly pernicious arises near the end of an RfA] might be understood as of some import—I'd like to adopt a pure voting system, but, as I say, we're not yet there—but I certainly submit that the role of the bureaucrat is ministerial; he acts only to determine whether a consensus exists for promotion, not whether there are deficiencies in the arguments submitted). At the moment we have 12 active bureaucrats, of whom four are generally on the vote-counting side (they, we might say, accept that the presumption is against promotion and that the determination of consensus is a largely numerical process (as it is too for XfDs, with certain caveats) and four who might generally be understood as situated contrarily, and we have surely had a few RfAs the outcome of which has depended solely on the category of the philosophy of the closing bureaucrat (as in ^demon's case, although there for slightly more complex reasons), and I am reluctant to support any candidate who might, I have reasonable cause to fear, end up in the second group. Joe 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(For WP:OPTOUT) That, of course, is the principal problem that underlies most every BLP-related discussion that the community has, and one that is probably inherent in an exercise of the nature of the project (one that is partaken of by [and for] peoples of the broadest array of interest, schemes of morality, and backgrounds ever one might imagine). There are those, amongst which number I find myself, who aren't convinced that there exists a "BLP problem", whether because we aren't particularly moral and are concerned only with ourselves and with the creation of a product that will be useful to us, irrespective of its consequences for others (I, for instance, apprehend no particular moral duty to avoid doing harm to those in whose being well I have no particularized interest, and I have difficulty understanding why one would be concerned that some real-life subject is being harmed by our editing; that strikes me, I suppose, as the sort of provincial thinking that might characterize the generation of my parents but beyond which we have evolved), or because we believe . Until the project , but that's not a bad thing. Even if you view it as altogether immoral, it's not for you to impose that on others, and if you can't stay here, you would do well to place yourself elsewhere (you're a bleeding heart progressive and I'm a sociopath) (and you're not complaining about vandalism but on bias and penumbral figures)

(For User talk:Betacommand) "Im always open to suggestions but I WILL NOT use any tag that has wrong information, any attempt on BAG to force that is against policy. end of story." This, of course, is the problem that underlay the most recent ArbCom case, and it disconcerts one that you are. The community and the right to set behavioral standards, and the community, by and through the BAG, could demand of you whatever it likes (you are free to leave). This is not a particularly auspicious start on your route to (a) civility and (b) respect for ocnsensus and the views of others;...bots are servants of the community, like admins...we wouldn't tolerate that attitude from an admin (well, we do, but there's controversy)

(For WP:AN re "controversy" articles) AFAICT, most of those, whilst forks, aren't inappropriate; they're relatively consistent with Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and Wikipedia:Summary style. There are, though, probably some issues with criticism Joe 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC) that the community have elected to feature them suggests that those reflect practice; whilst NPOV is a foundation principle,

(For User talk:LaraLove, re administrative IAR) See, that's what I simply don't get; I; It is essentially for those reasons writ large that Lara's VPP proposal that IAR not be understood as extending to administrative actions is quite sound. Administrators, it is too often forgotten, act solely ministerially, as servants of the community, to ascertain for what actions a consensus might exist and then to carry out those actions. Implicit in IAR, and in most that we do here, is that one may be bold and may properly exercise rather wide discretion in acting; adminship, though, is largely (wholly?) non-discretionary, and so IAR is a bad justification (although I am a PIIer, I do not discount, but in particular I don't see that IAR [that's not about Keilana, for the record, boldness can't be undone, and so care must be taken...judgment to carry out not to

It is essentially for those reasons writ large that Lara's VPP proposal that IAR not be understood as extending to administrative actions is quite sound. Administrators, it is too often forgotten, act solely ministerially, as servants of the community, to ascertain for what actions a consensus might exist and then to carry out those actions. Implicit in IAR, and in most that we do here, is that one may be bold and may properly exercise rather wide discretion in acting; adminship, though, is largely (wholly?) non-discretionary, and so IAR is a bad justification (although I am a PIIer, I do not discount, but in particular I don't see that IAR [that's not about Keilana, for the record,

boldness can't be undone, and so care must be taken...judgment to carry out not to make magisterial decisiosn make magisterial decisi

(For various ArbCom cases)

if we want to adopt not harming our contributors as policy (wikitruth, which is real, as against humor), that's fine, but it's not policy...we adopted it because it was being used disruptively...net effect on project, I guess, but goal is disseminate information. not protect contributors except where affect tehir contributions or future work
certainly not b/c bother you...ASR...so if you know it's wrong, unless you're advancing an IAR (I like, though the Selya-like)...everyone else save two have avoided explicitly mentioning, and I'm sad that someone who has generally (if not so much on issues related to infliction of emotional distress) is deliberate and legalistic
plenty of other topics we cover harm people, can't treat differently because this one does...we banned it because it was being used disruptively and because we want to dissuade things that impair the encyclopedia and our collaboration..
we've never, contrary to certain semi-common understandings, foreclosed
(On banning) (a) community determines evidence; (b) we get to overrule, essentially, b/c they act only to carry out our will (there should be no bannning xcept by private evidence)...they only consider limited issues
that's only for when they might otherwise have been desysopped but also the community make make it clear that we want that to happen (even to ArbCom);...no means to desysop involuntarily and arbcom sort of made that of...but can't leave to escape heat...community can c

(For WT:BLP and WP:DRV)

not going to elevate concerns that a few have about parodies that paint them unfavorably; we're not suborning harassment by covering
comply with every aspect not mean 1E or do no harm but only no neg unsourced...if under 1E, required to move to article about event or to stubbify
when we have ED (I think it's notable but understand args to contrary but someday will be), we will have grown up (Daniel Brandt)
sect 230 but your objection is to the entire existence not one particular edit (take down billboard)
what wastes time is the improper deletion...AfD gives time for sources...only for hopeless cases that aren't going to be an article or, w/respect to specifc cats, are promotional
explicit rejections of default to delete after BLP formatted (Bdj can't overturn that w/spirit)...only ignore where plainly inconsistent

(For WT:TOV) LEGAL is about threats against the Foundation that impair collaborative editing or that set someone up as a potential litigant (not criminal)....maybe a noticeboard/clearinghouse saying I found this threat and called on it...or at least here's a threat...someone may call...in userspace so unofficial no BEANS;...but, see, then you are taking a position...telling them to report to AN/I (I guess you mean if you're going to block them for disruption b/c then issue won't come to others)...some don't want to waste taxpapers money...others don't think that should be criminal or merit investigation (esp. if suic.) policy should be you may do what you want, only record so that not double/triple (if you think you need IP, then e-mail Foundation and they'll do it)...does have a pedagogical character;...the "take seriously" part is important if people a regoing to report them to AN/I and say I don't know if we should do anything...so if you're going to report it, take it seriously, but we can't tell you to take it seriously...if I see it, I'm not reporting it, and if i see someone raise it, I'm not taking it seriously (I also don't understand why get involved in even serious ones)...also suic need be treated differently;...when someone muttes "I finna kill you"

(For User talk:Kmweber) What if want tools to see deleted content or if previously otherwise nominated or if relatively reticent to accept or if power hunger rebutted

(For WP:BN) err vs. um...

(For User talk:GeeJo) Paris Hilton/Angola

(For User talk:WaltonOne) why is service to country important?

Consider recreating Albert Carver article (or some variant thereon)

Consider the encyclopedic value of the hand-drawn illustrations at Sports PNF Bold text