User:Lquilter/quotes

Quotes from other editors in various *FDs, talk pages, etc.

[edit] Eusebeus on Talk:Firefly 2007/12/6

User:Eusebeus for hilariously accurate 12/6 summary on Talk:Firefly (TV series) (diff)

[edit] Re-opened

Ok, we need to find some kind of a solution here to bring this content up to standard. Let's review:

• It is true that a cabal of evil-doers are intent on ruining Wikipedia for everyone, and particularly for beleaguered Firefly fans who are in dire need of an encyclopedic repository for in-universe details to cover the minutiae of character and plot development.
• It is further true, that these same editors seem blindly to insist upon the use of policies and guidelines to maintain encyclopedic standards, without regard to the larger need for fans to have a place for checking why Jayne dropped all that money, or the intricacies of Inara's Buddhism. People this stuff matters.
• It is further true that many committed fans have stood up to the crass wikilawyering of those who insist that sitewide policies and guidelines be applied to these articles. They make the case that a merge would serve no purpose, that merges are being forced upon people by Admins with God-complexes, that we might as well delete Presidents of the US, that consensus simply doesn't exist to merge, or that there are thousands of quality secondary sources that exist but time is needed for improvement, or that 9 individual articles are just fine and that we need this content and could we just like please stop ruining wikipedia for everybody, please? or simply no case at all.
• It is finally true that reviewing the discussion, there is clear consensus to merge. Per this, that, the other, some more crap, I don't know what this is and any other policies and guidelines that VigilancePrime reminds us not to link to, there is overwhelming consensus that fictional articles should focus primarily on the real-world significance of the subject. The question was whether that real-world significance exists and, if so, was it substantiated. Numerous editors have noted above that it simply does not, that such significance has not been demonstrated. As a result, a merge to a list of major characters article is the best-practice solution as determined by consensus at Wikipedia.
• Thus, per consensus, the character articles shall be merged into a single article per our conventions. There are two basic choices.
  1. Determine the best way to carry out such a merge, or
  2. Take this to dispute resolution.
• I will note, by way of conclusion, that the dispute resolution process makes paramount the existence of sitewide policy and guidelines so the net result will almost certainly be the same. But it is may be an appropriate avenue when objections to our consensus-driven sitewide policies & guidelines remain steadfast. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, 2007/12/12

On spoilers (diff):

I would suggest that the best solution is to drop the assumption that some information in an article on a fictional subject is toxic and must be flagged, tagged, or marked in some manner that will enable readers to not read it. If they don't want to know about a fictional subject, they can avoid reading encyclopedia articles on the subject. This gives complete control over to the reader. How about that? --Tony Sidaway 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bearcat on CFD 2007/12/2 "Heterosexual writers"

"Hey, how come the faggots get their own parade and stuff? Why isn't there a Straight Pride Day? If they have one, why can't we?" Because every day is already straight pride day. Delete. ..." link

[edit] Johnbod, Famous cheeses, 2007/11/29

"Category:Famous Cheeses: Merge per nom; 2 individual pieces of cheese aren't enough for an category, impressive though it is to see English cheeses leading the world in this respect. Oh yes, you French, you zink you arre so cleavair ..... Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)" [1])

[edit] Sue Wallace, 2007

THE WORLD'S SHORTEST FAIRY TALE.
Once upon a time, a guy asked a girl 'Will you marry me?' The girl said:'NO!'
And the girl lived happily ever-after and went shopping, dancing, camping, drank martinis, always had a clean house, never had to cook, did whatever the hell she wanted, never argued, didn't get fat, travelled more, had many lovers, didn't save money, and had all the hot water to herself. She went to the theatre, never watched sports, never wore friggin' lacy lingerie that went up her ass, had high self esteem, never cried or yelled, felt and looked fabulous in sweat pants and was pleasant all the time.
The End
User:Sue Wallace, diff

[edit] BrownHairedGirl, 2008 Feb.

User:BrownHairedGirl, diff (2008/2/28)

[edit] TS on "spoiler" warnings, 2008/2/18

I'll try to state it as diplomatically as possible: the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand the scope of human knowledge, and sometimes that is incompatible with some people's privately-conceived purpose of remaining in a state of selective ignorance. If you are one of those people who need to remain ignorant about certain facts, it's best to stay away from the products of projects whose avowed purpose is to disseminate information widely, and it's unrealistic to expect such projects to take steps to promote your private purpose in addition to its own publicly declared one. --TS 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway, [[2]], diff)