So I remove the {{spoiler}} tag from (I wouldn't dare make this up) [[Three Little Pigs]]. I'm promptly reverted with the comment "unilateral enforcement of a matter still in dispute." Anyone who agrees (or disagrees) that I'm acting unilaterally is welcome to join the discussion. At [[Three Little Pigs]]. Really. I'm not kidding.
On 17/05/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
So I remove the {{spoiler}} tag from (I wouldn't dare make this up) [[Three Little Pigs]]. I'm promptly reverted with the comment "unilateral enforcement of a matter still in dispute." Anyone who agrees (or disagrees) that I'm acting unilaterally is welcome to join the discussion. At [[Three Little Pigs]]. Really. I'm not kidding.
I have asked the user to explain how their edit improves the encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
- d.
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have asked the user to explain how their edit improves the encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
I as well.
I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof that that consensus self-evidently does not exist.
This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a 'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to be the Wikipedia Way.
This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee of that whatsoever.
Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and practise sneaked in without being noticed.
I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly in defense of the guideline in question.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have asked the user to explain how their edit improves the encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
I as well.
I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof that that consensus self-evidently does not exist.
This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a 'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to be the Wikipedia Way.
This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee of that whatsoever.
Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and practise sneaked in without being noticed.
I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly in defense of the guideline in question.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely. This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies - few people care until the small clique that develops them starts enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy - and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their' field will conform to their rules.
The solution is: 1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to contribute to, to enforce some style. 2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia. At the moment all we have is the blunt weapon of MfD for the community to say "Hell, no" to a small section of organised editors.
on 5/16/07 8:43 PM, doc at doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies - few people care until the small clique that develops them starts enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy - and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their' field will conform to their rules.
I am honestly not trying to reopen an old subject, but this is EXACTLY what happened in the area of WP Categories. It is exactly what I encountered.
Marc Riddell
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
The solution is:
- Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to
contribute to, to enforce some style.
WP:OWN
- A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a
small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia.
WP:CREEP
In abbreviated form, those will be the rebuttals to your solution. Whether they would be valid ones I don't know yet. Suppose I would have to read the small print.
While I agree we would probably be better off without {{spoiler}} tags anywhere, I can't say the same for infoboxes. The real problem there is inconstant formatting from one template to the next, and that there are too many specialized ones, and in some cases nobody can agree on which one should be used (see Paderewski). Ideally it wouldn't matter.
For now the best approach would probably be to limit the ability of wikiprojects to annex articles of debatable relevance. Probably I'm as annoyed by talk page banners as you are by infoboxes.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 5/16/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
The solution is:
- Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to
contribute to, to enforce some style.
WP:OWN
- A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a
small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia.
WP:CREEP
In abbreviated form, those will be the rebuttals to your solution. Whether they would be valid ones I don't know yet. Suppose I would have to read the small print.
While I agree we would probably be better off without {{spoiler}} tags anywhere, I can't say the same for infoboxes. The real problem there is inconstant formatting from one template to the next, and that there are too many specialized ones, and in some cases nobody can agree on which one should be used (see Paderewski). Ideally it wouldn't matter.
For now the best approach would probably be to limit the ability of wikiprojects to annex articles of debatable relevance. Probably I'm as annoyed by talk page banners as you are by infoboxes.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1. WP:OWN is a perfectly valid objection there. Anyone who edits an article (in good faith and without vandalizing, of course) is a contributor to that article. There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh, you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what goes into it" attitude going around. Quite often, the talk page of a given article can be just as cliquish, insular, and unfriendly to newcomers (especially newcomers who bring new ideas) as those backwater policy and guideline pages. We need less of that attitude, not more.
2. Now this, is a good idea. That's not CREEP, it -prevents- CREEP, by insuring that policies and guidelines really are enacted with consensus -of the community-, not just with consensus of whoever happened to be watching an obscure page that day. (Of course, that also means we're going to need to recognize that "consensus" doesn't necessarily mean "unanimity", and doesn't even mean "We won't have to drag a few people along kicking and screaming." If we don't do that, we'll never get -anything- done.)
On 5/16/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh, you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what goes into it" attitude going around.
Definitely too much of that already, I agree.
insuring that policies and guidelines really are enacted with consensus -of the community-, not just with consensus of whoever happened to be watching an obscure page that day.
That would be sort of an ownership issue in itself...
Today I've learned that "ownership" and "instruction creep" are either polar extremes, or the same damn thing, depending on one's perspective. My head hurts. Thanks.
—C.W.
Todd Allen wrote:
- WP:OWN is a perfectly valid objection there. Anyone who edits an
article (in good faith and without vandalizing, of course) is a contributor to that article. There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh, you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what goes into it" attitude going around. Quite often, the talk page of a given article can be just as cliquish, insular, and unfriendly to newcomers (especially newcomers who bring new ideas) as those backwater policy and guideline pages. We need less of that attitude, not more.
Obviously new contributors must be welcome to an article - in that sense WP:OWN is quite right. The problem is with a different type of WP:OWNer - the group that is enforcing some stylistic pattern that they have agreed - or some standardized infobox REGARDLESS of the view of those working on the article - who are actually more knowledgeable about the subject - think. (And, let me say I'm not anti-infoboxes, providing that the the actual box improves the article and isn't there because someone has decided that all articles of boxes of type x must have boy y, regardless of the details of the article).
Let me give some concrete examples:
I was working with others on the bio of a 16th Scots cleric, [[David Beaton]] when folk arrived and promptly moved the article to [[David Cardinal Beaton]]. When those who know Scots history objected that he's never known as that - and that major historical works and contemporary records never call him that, we were informed that the stylistic guidelines decreed that this was how all Roman Catholic cardinals MUST be denoted - and if we wanted to discuss it and reach a consensus we could not do so on the article's talk page - but we must go the the 'Roman Catholic Clergy guideline' page and get the meta-policy changed. That's clearly unacceptable - and led to edit wars.
It happened again when folk created a standardized clergy infobox and started applying it to all clergy. It had a standard field for 'Christian denomination' - which was fine for folk of the last few centuries - but was then applied to Christians in the first few centuries of the church - declaring all of the fathers and apostles to be 'Roman Catholic' - became clearly POV.
On another occasion I wrote a historical biography with all available information (there is no more) - to find someone with no knowledge of the field flew by from wikiproject biographies - marked the article for expansion - a need of an infobox - and in lack of an image (when none actually exist) - and then walked away. I challenged him to help with improving the article - but he was no in the least interested.
I could go on. Obviously new contributors to articles are welcome - WP:OWN is no good. But, at the same time, fly-bys who know nothing about the subject and are not willing even to stop and think 'what would benefit this particular article? How can it be improved?' - need hit with a cluestick.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
In abbreviated form, those will be the rebuttals to your solution. Whether they would be valid ones I don't know yet. Suppose I would have to read the small print.
While I agree we would probably be better off without {{spoiler}} tags anywhere, I can't say the same for infoboxes. The real problem there is inconstant formatting from one template to the next, and that there are too many specialized ones, and in some cases nobody can agree on which one should be used (see Paderewski). Ideally it wouldn't matter.
For now the best approach would probably be to limit the ability of wikiprojects to annex articles of debatable relevance. Probably I'm as annoyed by talk page banners as you are by infoboxes.
My attitude toward infoboxes is about as generous as my attitude toward spoiler warnings, but what seems important to me in dealing with this category of problem is maintaining focus. By taking one of these problems, like spoiler warnings, and combining our energies to deal with it we can be far more effective than in trying to deal with all of them at the same time. Our opponents tend to be particularly focused to the point of monomania.
This does not diminish the importance of the other problems; it's only a tactical deferral.
Ec
On 17/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My attitude toward infoboxes is about as generous as my attitude toward spoiler warnings, but what seems important to me in dealing with this category of problem is maintaining focus. By taking one of these problems, like spoiler warnings, and combining our energies to deal with it we can be far more effective than in trying to deal with all of them at the same time. Our opponents tend to be particularly focused to the point of monomania.
That's unnecessarily confrontational.
I'm not going to look at what dreadful condition it's in at present, but WP:CLS - the categories/lists/series boxes guideline - used to note that a disadvantage of boxes is that they can become claims of ownership and neutrality problems. Can you put together as effective a case to put the point across as Phil did, with some reasonable course of action that is less apocalyptic than "delete the lot"? Nice as that might be sometimes.
(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].)
(And if anyone reverts you putting that in an article, let me know.)
- d.
On 17/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].)
(And if anyone reverts you putting that in an article, let me know.)
They did, with some wittering about "until we can get a free image this unfree one works fine". So I went and wheedled a CC-BY-SA image out of someone on flickr.
I do like stories with happy endings :-)
On 17/05/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].) (And if anyone reverts you putting that in an article, let me know.)
They did, with some wittering about "until we can get a free image this unfree one works fine". So I went and wheedled a CC-BY-SA image out of someone on flickr. I do like stories with happy endings :-)
I mean in general. Any infobox of a living person without an image, or with a *stupidly* unfree one, needs that in. It's actually gotten us free images, so is worth the effort.
(and *pint* to Geni for coming up with it)
- d.
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].)
Maybe but since infoboxes have no single way of setting image size it can be tricky to set the thing to 150px size.
On 18/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(I like infoboxes because they provide a nice place to put [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]].)
Maybe but since infoboxes have no single way of setting image size it can be tricky to set the thing to 150px size.
I see the current version defaults to 10px in size. Is that a MediaWiki thing or can it be set inside the SVG?
- d.
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see the current version defaults to 10px in size. Is that a MediaWiki thing or can it be set inside the SVG?
No that is set by the SVG as part of the intial design that didn't use a redirect from the image. The SVG should probably be replaced with the one at [[Image:Replace this image1commer.svg]] but since it is protected I can't do that.
On 18/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see the current version defaults to 10px in size. Is that a MediaWiki thing or can it be set inside the SVG?
No that is set by the SVG as part of the intial design that didn't use a redirect from the image. The SVG should probably be replaced with the one at [[Image:Replace this image1commer.svg]] but since it is protected I can't do that.
You need of course but ask. The standard version is now the 150px version. w00t!
- d.
On 18/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No that is set by the SVG as part of the intial design that didn't use a redirect from the image. The SVG should probably be replaced with the one at [[Image:Replace this image1commer.svg]] but since it is protected I can't do that.
You need of course but ask. The standard version is now the 150px version. w00t!
So we don't have to faff with all those |width=150px arguments any more? Excellent.
On 5/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
So we don't have to faff with all those |width=150px arguments any more? Excellent.
Sadly not quite the case. A lot of infoboxes when not given a width will default to 200px+ which I tend to view as to large. On top of that there are a few that will not let you set the image size all through pretty much any standard method.
On 18/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
So we don't have to faff with all those |width=150px arguments any more? Excellent.
Sadly not quite the case. A lot of infoboxes when not given a width will default to 200px+ which I tend to view as to large. On top of that there are a few that will not let you set the image size all through pretty much any standard method.
Which ones are now broken and/or scale the SVG weirdly?
(A 150px image in a 200px infobox is fine.)
- d.
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Which ones are now broken and/or scale the SVG weirdly?
(A 150px image in a 200px infobox is fine.)
Various. I normaly only find out when I go to add the image but at random Template:Infobox_Wrestler will scale it up to 200px (not totally confident that one allows you to set size other than 200px)
On 18/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Which ones are now broken and/or scale the SVG weirdly? (A 150px image in a 200px infobox is fine.)
Various. I normaly only find out when I go to add the image but at random Template:Infobox_Wrestler will scale it up to 200px (not totally confident that one allows you to set size other than 200px)
Perhaps we can demand "any free content photo must be less ugly than this picture."
- d.
On 5/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
So we don't have to faff with all those |width=150px arguments any more? Excellent.
You never had to do that in the first place. It's easier to assign a default size by editing the template. Could do something like this.
[[Image:{{{image|Replace_this_image1.svg}}}|{{{image_size|150px}}}|center|etc.]]
—C.W.
Both retaining all spoiler tags and removing all of them are extremes someone is going to be unhappy with, but Three Little Pigs? You can write an article on a fairy tale without discussing its moral which means revealing the end.
Mgm
On 5/17/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have asked the user to explain how their edit improves the encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
I as well.
I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof that that consensus self-evidently does not exist.
This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a 'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to be the Wikipedia Way.
This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee of that whatsoever.
Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and practise sneaked in without being noticed.
I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly in defense of the guideline in question.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely. This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies - few people care until the small clique that develops them starts enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy - and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their' field will conform to their rules.
The solution is:
- Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to
contribute to, to enforce some style. 2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia. At the moment all we have is the blunt weapon of MfD for the community to say "Hell, no" to a small section of organised editors.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/17/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Both retaining all spoiler tags and removing all of them are extremes someone is going to be unhappy with, but Three Little Pigs? You can write an article on a fairy tale without discussing its moral which means revealing the end.
There are at least two different endings which complicates that.
On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:50:03 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Both retaining all spoiler tags and removing all of them are extremes someone is going to be unhappy with, but Three Little Pigs? You can write an article on a fairy tale without discussing its moral which means revealing the end.
My best one to date was [[Jack and the beanstalk]], but the same applies. And is there really anyone left in the world who does not know the ending of the 1933 King Kong? Or understand what Catch-22 is about?
Guy (JzG)
G'day Sean,
So I remove the {{spoiler}} tag from (I wouldn't dare make this up) [[Three Little Pigs]]. I'm promptly reverted with the comment "unilateral enforcement of a matter still in dispute." Anyone who agrees (or disagrees) that I'm acting unilaterally is welcome to join the discussion. At [[Three Little Pigs]]. Really. I'm not kidding.
Nothing like [[Three Little Pigs]] (what a corker!), but amusing nonetheless: [[Baron Münchhausen]]. But wait! It's not just that a spoiler warning was considered necessary for this chap's life (or unbelievable retelling of same), but what precisely we were protected from reading.
For reasons unknown to my humble self, the article includes the table of contents, including the original ToC's introductory paragraphs, which explain what occurs in each chapter. Yes, the publisher isn't worried about spoiling your enjoyment with this, but some conscientious chap on Wikipedia wants to spare you where others callously refused.
(I wonder if he'd go to bookshops and paint over the blurbs with a texta, too, to prevent spoilers ...)
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Sean,
So I remove the {{spoiler}} tag from (I wouldn't dare make this up) [[Three Little Pigs]]. I'm promptly reverted with the comment "unilateral enforcement of a matter still in dispute." Anyone who agrees (or disagrees) that I'm acting unilaterally is welcome to join the discussion. At [[Three Little Pigs]]. Really. I'm not kidding.
Nothing like [[Three Little Pigs]] (what a corker!), but amusing nonetheless: [[Baron Münchhausen]]. But wait! It's not just that a spoiler warning was considered necessary for this chap's life (or unbelievable retelling of same), but what precisely we were protected from reading.
For reasons unknown to my humble self, the article includes the table of contents, including the original ToC's introductory paragraphs, which explain what occurs in each chapter. Yes, the publisher isn't worried about spoiling your enjoyment with this, but some conscientious chap on Wikipedia wants to spare you where others callously refused.
(I wonder if he'd go to bookshops and paint over the blurbs with a texta, too, to prevent spoilers ...)
Oh, it gets worse - I've yesterday removed {spoiler} from: [[Little Red Riding Hood]] [[The Ugly Duckling]] A Disney Theme park ride Spartacus Treasure Island Little Women Hamlet Mary Poppins The Ten Commandments and,...wait for it... Cinderella
I mean that Prince Charming marries the girl is a plot twist you'd never expect ;)
On 5/17/07, sean@epoptic.com sean@epoptic.com wrote:
So I remove the {{spoiler}} tag from (I wouldn't dare make this up) [[Three Little Pigs]]. I'm promptly reverted with the comment "unilateral enforcement of a matter still in dispute." Anyone who agrees (or disagrees) that I'm acting unilaterally is welcome to join the discussion. At [[Three Little Pigs]]. Really. I'm not kidding.
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
Mathias "I shoot people inserting spoiler warnings in de.wp on sight" Schindler
On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
Would a spoiler warning in [[Life]], [[Earth]], [[Reality]] or [[Universe]] be an indication of original research or conflict of interest?
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 5/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
Would a spoiler warning in [[Life]], [[Earth]], [[Reality]] or [[Universe]] be an indication of original research or conflict of interest?
A spoiler warning on [[42 (nmber)]] may help those who really don't want to know where life is leading them.
Ec
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:51:16PM -0700, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
[[Big Bang]]? (Or to use the name more commonly heard in scientific circles, the [[Horrendous Space Kablooie|HSK]]?)
It's been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Passion_of_the_Christ&curi...
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
On 5/17/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
It's been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Passion_of_the_Christ&curi...
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
That should be cited in a How Not To Use The Template section of the style guideline.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 5/17/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to insert a spoiler warning in [[Battle of Thermopylae]] to protect the innocent 300-watchers?
I see your Thermopylae and raise a [[Jesus Christ]].
Doubling 300 gives 600 as in Tennyson's [[Charge of the Light Brigade]].
Ec