Talk:Shnorrer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion took place in 2004 and 2005, do not change it.

Contents

[edit] 2004

Any hope of reaching a consensus here? Or maybe following the 3-revert rule? Pakaran. 04:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to list Karl Schnörrer on this page since his name is spelt differently from Shnorrer, therefore disambiguation is not needed. Maximus Rex 04:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's confusingly similar, I think a note should be there. But let's see what happens with the vfd first. Anthony DiPierro 04:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? To make absolutely sure it cannot be expanded or otherwise improved? <KF> 18:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Because any troll can provoke an edit war on any page he wants, and have the page semi-permanently protected. --Wik 19:37, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Wik, I don't understand your answer. <KF> 19:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Edit war. --Wik 19:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through the whole edit history one by one, and all I can say is that the two (three?) of you are behaving like three year olds. And this is not meant as a compliment ("unspoiled by adulthood" or whatever). If an edit war is about controversial subjects such as abortion, Palestine or freedom fries, that's bad but understandable. But this?
And by the way, it's sepArate. <KF> 20:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It is indeed not understandable why trolls like Anthony are given a free rein here. --Wik 20:23, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From vfd

Wik was correct to remove the addition of Karl Shnörrer, as it was in violation of our disambiguation policy.—Eloquence

And you were wrong to make an edit to a protected page. Anthony DiPierro 22:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Misspellings can be listed in a separate section 'Common misspellings' or 'see also'." Wik was incorrect for removing the text referring to Karl Schnorrer (it wasn't an addition, it was in the original). He should have changed it to "see also" or "common misspellings." At the very least he should have pointed to Wikipedia:disambiguation on the talk page. BTW, this thread should be moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Shnorrer" is not a misspelling of "Karl Schnorrer". It's a misspelling of his last name. There's only a need to disambiguate if there's a substantial risk of confusion, which is not the case here.—Eloquence 02:35, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
Fine, so do you want me to redirect to Schnorrer? That would be dumb. I think there is a substantial risk of confusion. And there needent be a "substantial" risk of confusion, only a "real" risk of confusion. Anthony DiPierro 02:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If the main content is deleted a redirect would be fine. Otherwise Karl Schnorrer shouldn't show up on this page at all.—Eloquence 03:17, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
If a redirect is appropriate, then a note on the page is appropriate as well. Anthony DiPierro 03:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not at all. Wikipedia articles are not search indices. Disambiguation is a must, pointing out possible misspellings is a courtesy, creating redirects from virtually unique names to the articles about a person (Chomsky) is a convenience, but cluttering pages with non-disambigauting name index content is not desirable at all -- we do have List of people by name already for that purpose. When a convenience becomes a distraction, it's better to get rid of it.—Eloquence 04:38, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
It seems we disagree at a most fundamental level. A note at the bottom of the page is not a distraction, and it is a convenience. How about a vote: Should this page mention Schnorrer or not? Anthony DiPierro 04:43, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Since the original page is of questionable validity, let's look at an analogy: Would you want to add a link to Antoine Alexandre Barbier to the page called Barber? I think such a link would be distracting from the content of the barber page, where I expect to read about that profession, and find links to relevant related pages -- reading about all articles which might have some similar word in their title distracts me from this goal. I have no problem with holding a vote on this, but one should keep the precedent in mind that this might set.—Eloquence 04:53, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose such a link, but I think it's of less use than this one. My bet is that such a precedent has already been set. I'll look for one. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, the closest I could find was Santa Clause, though I actually believe that one is a mistake. Some oher mispelling notes are on pitta, sterling, stirling, stamford, Eiffel, and brest, but I'm done looking. I'm going to sleep. Anthony DiPierro 05:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

let

[edit] From VfD

  • Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment about Karl Schnorrer moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the slang part that's a problem. It's the dictionary definition part. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro
      • Oh, that's fine with me. So let's nominate Baseball slang, which consists solely of dictionary definitions. <KF> 22:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Believe me, a cryptic reference to another page that contains lots and lots of ideas, guidelines, rules, etc. is not (let me repeat this: not) an argument. You seem to have three other "arguments" at your disposal which you use in a random fashion: "dictionary definition", "slang", and "encyclopaedic" (see Baseball slang below). <KF> 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Once again. Brash fighting on the delete page. Shnorrer is an entry entirely devoted to a definition of a word (let's ignore "slang" here). That violates the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" on the page that Anthony mentions above. Baseball slang is an encyclopedic entry that talks about how slang has affected American language, and then lists examples. Now, it is perhaps not the best written prose, but it is encyclopedic, not a straight dictionary entry. Move Shnorrer to wiki- dictionary, and delete. Lyellin 00:52, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I wasn't making an argument. The argument is already made at Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've never used "slang" as justification for a deletion. As for my use of "encyclopedic," I think regular contributors will know what I mean. If you don't, I encourage you to stick around for a while and see. There's a lot of shorthand notation that goes around on these pages. I'm sorry if I was brash. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Over time I think this could become an extremely encyclopedic article on a cultural archetype that has a lot more behind it than a simple dictionary definition. --Alex S 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. KF: The Baseball Slang article isn't very good, but falls into the "lists" category (which is my vote below). Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: literary term. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No comment on deleting but if it does stay it should be spelled correctly: schnorrer, which gets about 44,000 Google hits compared to a few hundred for the unusual one in use in this article. Jamesday 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important cultural term. 131.130.181.71 16:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting this term could be seen as an anti-semitic act by some. Wikikiwi 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If Schnorrer is going to redirect here, the disambiguation notice is needed. This makes a lot more sense than having a whole separate page just to disambiguate this from Karl Schnörrer. Angela. 21:42, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed with your first sentence. But schnorrer shouldn't redirect here. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article title should be Schnorrer, not Shnorrer. Three respected online dictionaries indicate that the correct spelling is schnorrer.

Bartleby lists shnorrer as "Slang Variant of schnorrer." Merriam-Webster says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary," and suggests schnorrer. The OED automatically redirects to the listing for schnorrer.

Google shows 33,600 hits for schnorrer and only 380 hits for shnorrer.

Once the page is properly titled, then the article title will be identical to the surname. Will that require a disambiguation page or notice? Not necessarily. We have seven articles about people with the surname Carpenter, but carpenter makes no mention of them. Goldsmith is about the profession and does not mention Jerry or Oliver. I've put some more examples on my talk sub-page User_talk:SWAdair/Surname_disambiguation. SWAdair | Talk 10:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We need to have a link to Karl Schnörrer from Schnorrer!


Currently protected. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And again. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Schnorrer recently survived vfd. See: Talk:Schnorrer/Delete -- Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Considering that two editors of this article cannot compromise, I am asking the Wikipedia community to vote on three seperate versions of this article. Please vote on all three version, and then we'll stick with the version that has the most consensus. --"DICK" CHENEY 01:48, 13 May 2004

Is there a way to vote for "none of the above"? Awolf002 23:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose all three... Martin 23:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

But this does not allow that "most consensus" can go to that choice, and so one of the three page versions will always win, right? Awolf002 23:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a version with a majority of opposition can be considered to have "won" anything. This isn't an official poll, anyway. Cheney hasn't even followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. anthony (see warning) 23:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay... I will call it a "straw poll" in my head... Thanks, and it is time to "vote"! Awolf002 23:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angela's latest version (1/7)

As seen here. This version is a compromise that links to Karl Schnörrer in the body of the article.

Support

  1. I think this compromise will do. GrazingshipIV 02:21, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Bryan 02:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Karl Schnörrer has nothing to do with the Yiddish term, so mixing the two subjects together like this is misleading and quite unhelpful. In this case it isn't even in a separate paragraph.
  2. Don't see why Karl Schnörrer should be listed on this page at all. john 05:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cantus 06:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Overall I am against adding surnames to these as disambiguations - Tεxτurε 03:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. Quagga - It doesn's stick out. Someone would have to search to find Karl.
  6. anthony (see warning) I don't at all like the phrasing of this version. I'd prefer no mention of Schnorrer than this. I'd be open to other phrasings, maybe.
  7. If the article is concerning the term, he should not be part of content AquaRichy 07:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I thought the compromise might stop them fighting, but I don't really care either way. Angela. 08:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wik's latest version (8/7)

As seen here. This version makes no reference to Karl Schnörrer at all.

Support

  1. I see no particular reason to mention Karl Schnörrer. I'm not certain this should be an encyclopedia article at all, though. john 02:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Eloquence* (standard disambig policy - only disambiguate when there is a substantial risk of confusion)
  3. User:Neutrality
  4. Maximus Rex 06:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. cryptfiend64 00:08, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. 172 15:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Cantus is acting like a moron.
  7. Tεxτurε 03:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  8. I looked up "Heckler" as test. There is no link to Heckler and Koch, and it is not needed. Come On! Everybody knows how to "google" through a large set of pages! Awolf002 00:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Unhelpful to users. Markalexander100 06:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. A poor idea. Snowspinner 18:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cantus 06:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Pascal666 13:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. Quagga - Wik is acting like a moron. (If 172 is going to suck-up to Wik, I might as well suck-up to Cantus) But seriously, I actually have a real reason. If I'm looking for Karl, and I forget his first name, what am I going to do?
  6. anthony (see warning) I don't see why Karl Schnorrer shouldn't be disambiguated from Schnorrer. Yes, it'd be nice if we had separate pages for schnorrer and Schnorrer, but we don't.
    • His name is not "Karl Schnorrer" but "Karl Schnörrer" or "Karl Schnoerrer". john k 19:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to accept your assertion that his name is not "Karl Schnorrer". anthony (see warning) 22:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  7. When looking for Schnörrer, I think many people will use an o, not a ö. His last name is more memorable than his first. And simply ignoring his existence is unhelpful to users. AquaRichy 07:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Bryan It's not very likely that someone looking for Karl Schnörrer will wind up here, IMO, so I don't see a problem with not mentioning him at all.

[edit] Cantus' latest version (9/6)

As seen here. This version makes a prominent disambiguation towards Karl Schnörrer at the top of the article.

Support

  1. Bryan The two subjects are completely separate even though they have similar titles, and this is the standard Wikipedia way of handling that.
  2. Cantus - Obvious.
  3. More helpful to users. Markalexander100 06:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. This is fairly clearly the way to do this. Snowspinner 18:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. I would expect to find Karl on this page. Pascal666 01:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  6. Quagga - It is hard for some people to type in the "ö" letter. And why have to type in the full name? When I'm looking for Ralph Nader, for example, I would type in "Nader".
  7. Yea same reason as Quagga. --64.164.0.161
    • Just so you know, this vote was not mine. That was my friend who believes in what he believes in. Please, don't delete it. I am not a sockpuppet of him. --Quagga
  8. anthony (see warning) Substantial risk of confusion. In fact, I'd recommend equal disambiguation, as it seems to me someone is at least as likely to be looking for Karl Schnorrer as for the yiddish term.
  9. Schnörrer's first name is not very memorable, and o is a frequent substitute for ö. Also, Lincoln points Abraham Lincoln AquaRichy 07:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Ga! Karl Schnörrer is not Abraham Lincoln. Thousands of other people do not have the article on their last name conaining disambiguating links to their names. And what the hell is wrong with th ename "Karl"? john k 08:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Eloquence* (no substantial risk of confusion)
  2. Karl Schnörrer's surname is spelled differently, and most people with a last name don't get a disambiguation notice on a page whose title is that last name. C.f. Smith, which has no people of that surname listed, or Lincoln, which mentions only Abraham Lincoln of all the people to have held that surname. john 05:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Maximus Rex 06:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. cryptfiend64 00:10, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Cantus is acting like a moron again. 172 15:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
    • This is sad. When are you going to realize that licking Wik's boots is not the best thing to do? --Cantus 03:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  6. Overall I am against adding surnames to these as disambiguations - Tεxτurε 03:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

[edit] Umlauts

Wik said in his page:

Schnorrer (Anthony keeps adding link to Karl Schnörrer, who is not likely to be sought at Schnorrer)

Sorry, but I think this is valid assumption that one might seek Karl Schnörrer via Schnorrer link list. I for one searching for someone with o-with-dots I am always entering o-without-dots since only way of optaining the ö character would be copy and paste or using character table in Windows. For me using Schnorrer to find Karl Schnörrer is as likely as using it to find Shnorrer. Since both are wrongly formulated search queries they are equals. This page shouldn't be even created IMHO. Przepla 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not equal. You have to leave out both the umlaut and the first name. It's too unlikely. Do you also want a link from barber to Antoine Alexandre Barbier? --Wik 23:59, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
The umlat does not obviously exist on most keyboards, and many do not know how to quickly type it. (I know I don't). This makes leaving it out in a search fairly common. And last names regularly redirect to articles on people - c.f. Hitler, Freud, etc. Snowspinner 18:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Without the umlaut, the name should be spelled Karl Schnoerrer. At any rate, Karl Schnörrer is no Hitler, Freud, etc. It is not as though people talk about "Schnörrer", and everyone knows who they mean. john 06:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Searching for a page on Karl Schnörrer by typing in "Schnorrer" may be unlikely, for some value of unlikely, but I think searching for the word schnorrer by typing in "schnorrer" (or at all on this site) is about equally unlikely, especially when you consider that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. anthony (see warning)

To note, there is a standard way in English to make the umlaut - add an "e" after the vowel. It is rather lame to have this contain a redirect to a man whose last name is spelled differently. At any rate, why don't we just delete the whole damned article - it's a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry. john 02:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is very common. It seems to me much more logical to just drop the umlaut. The page has been listed on VfD twice and "won" both times. anthony (see warning) 19:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not only common, it's standard. Hermann Goering. Der Fuehrer. And so forth. john k 19:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I assume you're using the sense of "standard" which means the same thing as "common". Otherwise perhaps you'll clarify. anthony (see warning) 22:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I mean "standard" in the sense that this is an actual rule. john k 22:27, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
According to whom? There are "rules" (started by Noah Webster) which say that you spell "colour" as "color", but that doesn't mean we have to follow them. anthony (see warning) 22:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
The standard English means of dealing with umlauts is to use "[vowel]e" instead of [vowel with umlaut]. This was done rather consistently back in the days before people started using the umlauts. And is still used in, for instance, urls - the "Zürich Gruppe" has its url at www.zuerich.de, for instance. Why don't you find a legitimate citation that calls him "Karl Schnorrer"? Surely the presumption should not be on a technically incorrect name. Also, why on earth would anyone expect to find the name of a man with only a few hundred google hits at solely his last name? It is not as though he is Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill or William Shakespeare, or something. john k 22:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Again you provide nothing but assertions with no evidence. What would you consider a legitimate citation? Maybe I can provide you with one. In the mean time, consider this: "Karl Schnorrer" gets 131 google hits. "Karl Schnoerrer" gets 2.
As for your second rhetorical question, I'll answer it with another rhetorical question. Why on earth would anyone expect to find a dictionary definition in an encyclopedia? anthony (see warning) 22:55, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but you mistake me for another, who thinks this page is worthwhile to begin with. I agree that this article is basically a dictionary definition, and probably should be deleted, to begin with. Shall I list for deletion? john k 23:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I supported its deletion on VfD the last two times it was listed. However, my point is I think it's just as likely that someone typing "Schnorrer" is looking for Karl as for the dictionary definition. anthony (see warning) 01:22, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so can we delete it then? --Quagga
It didn't receive consensus support for deletion. anthony (see warning) 14:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Wik is correct on this matter. The disambiguation policy is quite clear:

Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.

Whether or not this particular article is important is irrelevant. The purpose of disambiguation is to deal with pages which would otherwise have the same title. This is not the case here, hence no disambiguation is needed. If people want to search for "Schnorrer", they should click "Search", not "Go", which should then include a redirect from "Karl Schnorrer". Granted, the search is disabled, but this will change very soon. As the policy states, disambiguation is not intended as a replacement for the search.-Eloquence*

The purpose is to deal with pages which might otherwise have the same title. It is quite common to refer to people by their last names, and it is also quite common to drop "the little dotty thingies" from the top of vowels. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wik's votes

I've added Wik's opinions in the poll, which I think are abundantly clear from the history of this dispute, and should be taken into account. If anyone wants to raise some point of order with respect to this, I will happilly let them consider that I have used up my "vote" to do so. In any case, wikipedia:polling guidelines doesn't discourage recording of opinions expressed elsewhere within a poll, and doing so happens from time to time on other polls without it causing a massive problem. They're only advisory, anyway. Martin 00:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

You can't just vote for people. They themselves need to vote. If they are not there, don't count their vote if they never voted. --Quagga
Firstly, it's not a "vote", it's a poll.
Secondly, yes I can, for the reasons I just gave. If you (wrongly) believe that I cannot, please explain why you believe that, rather than just saying "you just can't", which isn't very constructive.
Personally, I believe in listening to people's opinions whereever they are expressed, rather than beauracratically insisting that opinions will only be listened to if they are expressed in the right way in the right place. Martin 22:48, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay, then, my reason is that since Wik is not here, he cannot participate in polls. I feel that you shouldn't do things for him, and that he needs to do it himself. --Quagga
Well, I feel that it's up to individuals to decide whether to pay any mind to Wik's opinion - we shouldn't decide on their behalf by simply removing it. Rather, provide the information, and let people make up their own minds. I take the same approach with respected to alleged trolls, for example.
However, I won't re-add it again. Martin 00:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay, let's make a deal. We'll keep it removed for now, but when Wik gets un-banned, he can add it himself. --Quagga

This whole vote seems rather invalid, as the terms of it were never discussed beforehand. Unless consensus is reached, I'd consider it meaningless. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars (in my opinion) resurfaced today -- I can't count how many reverts over the ridiculous disputed Karl Schnorrer link. I don't know whose version I protected, and I don't care (m:The Wrong Version). I have to go, so abuse/slander/allegations of impropriety can be left here or on my talk page, but really I just hope everyone can be calm enough to either talk this thing through or let it go. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

For crying out loud, we have another edit war? At least this one is a slow one with new combatants. But I promise, if you guys keep fighting over this, I'll reprotect the page. Let's all exercise Wikiquette and discuss the right thing to do on the talk page, rather than revert each other. I'll even get things started. I think the disambig note doesn't hurt things one bit, and that it might as well remain in place since some people might find it helpful. I know if I was looking for information on the German gentleman and didn't know how to insert an umlaut, I might search for "Schnorrer". Jwrosenzweig 07:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
See [1] and start wondering who is who. <KF> 23:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Protected again. This is too silly to discuss. People, do something useful instead of wasting your time! <KF> 21:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. If people want to squabble over a disambig, let them, block the worst offenders, and let Wikipedia get on with being a wiki. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

And you think this was a good idea? <KF> 20:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected again. This time for some reason there wasn't even a protection template, though it was recorded on WP:PP. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected again. Someone persistently creates new accounts just to remove the dab line w/o discussion, which I have been blocking on sight. Lately, their new accounts have also violated username policy. Oh well... --Fire Star 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting again after six days. Locking up our wiki isn't the way to handle problems like this. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Fire Star 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ha!

At least we've taught our vandal not to use username anagrams... --Fire Star 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

He was using (misspelled) lines from an old Monty Python skit as usernames until I blocked him once (knowing the skit, who has no social life?) before he could redirect again. Probably not a bot, then, I'd guess. --Fire Star 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)