Talk:List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees/Archive 1

Over-categorization?
When I saw this new page, my first thought was that it represented over-categorization, but I decided not to propose its deletion after I saw Articles for deletion/List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees, which resulted in "keep." --Orlady (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Anyone wanna clean up the header to this page with some relevant information? Bull dog123 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The intro does need to be trimmed of trivia, but the trivia tag doesn't seem to be the best one for it, since it refers to lists of trivia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree w/the sysop who removed the trivia tag that it is not appropriate. Also, having examined each ref in the intro, in addition to the text, I note that this is all material the RSs view as non-trivial ... a view I concur with (as, apparently, did the editor removing the tag).  Furthermore, the tag was applied here by an editor who first sought (and failed) to delete the list.  This suggests that the editor has a view as to what is non-notable that is at direct odds with the consensus view.  It is tendentious and disruptive for Bull to push his non-consensus POV on others through disruptive editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the hell you're arguing for or against here. The intro obviously needs to be trimmed to be for more pertinent information, this is not at all an argument about a particular editor, but about how the improve this article, please try to keep the personal disputes somewhere else.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me. That's typical Epeefleche behavior. Just ignore it. Bull dog123  23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it is fair to characterize this as a “personal dispute”. Bulldog has a long history of tag-bombing articles after not getting his way after nominating an article for an AfD. That comes squarely and fairly under the rubric of “legitimate editorial discussion” due to “disruptive and tendentious editing.” Whether a tag belongs in this particular article is properly discussed here on this talk page and that is what Epeefleche did—not by going to Bulldog’s personal talk page to rant about his doing more of the same (which would just result in a flame war). Each article has different circumstances. But it is helpful for other editors to understand when discussing things here, that there is a tendentious pattern to this editor and his tags. It is all information that can be useful in identifying the true consensus here, on this article, for that particular tag. The sysop clearly did the correct action in removing the tag . The sysop’s edit summary also properly describes why he had to step in as he did. The proper response to the community’s rejection of one’s AfD nomination is not to tag the article with {this is a poopy article and I don’t like it} tags. There is clearly no community consensus for such tags. I would hope that the editor who put that tag there (which made the article look like this) won’t find new and novel {I don’t like it} tags with which to bomb the article; any shortcomings can be satisfactorily addressed, as Yaksar pointed out, by editing the article in a constructive fashion. Bulldog’s contribution history suggests he is a single-purpose editor opposed to articles on categorizations of people (this article being one of those). There are a lot of such articles now on Wikipedia. I encourage him to find something better to do that will be less frustrating for him and for the community. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) To clarify: I agree w/the sysop who removed the trivia tag, and with Yaksar, that the trivia tag applied by Bulldog is not appropriate.

To clarify further, I examined each ref in the intro, and the related text. IMHO this is all material the RSs view as non-trivial. I concur with the RSs. As, apparently, did the editor removing the tag. We look to RSs to determine what is notable and non-trivial.

Furthermore, in applying the tag Bulldog used the same arguments he made at the recent AfD of this list. That the arguments were considered by the community, and rejected by the community, is indeed pertinent in considering the arguments here. As is the fact that Bull made similar arguments, which were also rejected by the community, at his failed effort (first to merge, and then to re-name) the category "African American artists" here, and at the AfD of "African American film directors" here, and in his nomination for deletion of the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees here; the general approach was discussed here. These are pertinent to consideration of the arguments advanced by Bull in tagging this list, as they reflect community consideration of similar arguments he has advanced.

While related, I haven't in my above reply covered Bull's concurrent deletion of references to this list, as unlike the above it does not bear as directly on Bull's argument for tagging this list. The deletion matter is reflected here. Perhaps a new, separate string should be opened reflecting that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop turning every mistake you make into a personal dispute with another editor. If you don't know how to edit Wikipedia properly (e.g., without creating copyright issues or random paragraphs of WP:TRIVIA), then don't edit it. Bull dog123  23:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (*sigh*) Now that (dredging up an old, now-resolved issue regarding some editor complaining about the shortcomings of his choice of copyright tag on an image) has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. Accordingly, it amounts to pure personal attacks and baiting. Go take that sort of stuff elsewhere. It’s also interesting to note that the editor who made that big stink to which you linked (Wjemather) received a permanent interaction ban to stay away from Epeefleche as a result of what he did raising that issue, which was borne out of wikistalking and wikihounding. After you take your personal attacks elsewhere, you might also dredge up better examples of past, extraneous, now-resolved issues when you try to bait other editors. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You do understand I don't read your comments anymore so you're basically just typing to no one, right? I mean, continue if you wish. It's not like it bothers me much... I just think you'd be better off doing something more productive. (As you once stated before). Bull dog123  00:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just more taunting and baiting from you. You never let up. First, you did too read the above. Your protestation that you responded without having read what you responded to is laughably not credible. Secondly (and more importantly), I wrote that so that others here can understand the true facts about your misrepresentations so an informed consensus can be arrived at. That you dredge up some past case as some sort of *proof* that Epeefleche is a poor editor when, in fact, that complaining editor received a permanent interaction ban at an ANI just a day ago is telling. More electronic white space is available below for you to respond to me—all the while stating that you have done so without even reading what you are responding to. Funny. Please, if you don’t have anything valuable to contribute to improving this article, go somewhere else. Otherwise, you are just being disruptive. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. So that other editors can understand the context behind Bulldog’s tagging of this article and suggested wholesale deletion of entire sections, see User talk:Adabow #Pretending an edit is vandalism, where a frustrated admin is dealing with yet another instance of this sort of stuff. Bulldog is increasingly appearing to be a single-purpose account opposed to all articles on human classifications. Seeing that discussion thread might cast Bulldog’s objections here in a broader context. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see this harassment is not ceasing, I might as well respond: Greg L has been following me around from talk page, to talk page, to talk page, to talk page, to talk page, to talk page -- persistently and aggressively referring to "Bulldog this" "Bulldog that" and almost never on the "content" of what's being discussed (content that Greg L has never edited in the entirety of his time on Wikipedia). He regularly engages misrepresenting my edits as "vengeful" or "intentionally disruptive" (frequently referring incorrectly to WP:SPA - which does not refer to editors who edit a specific niche but low-edit-count users -- and WP:TENDENTIOUS). I do frequently edit articles of which I had voted to delete - but it should be obvious that just because an article is kept doesn't mean I can't edit it afterwards - especially if it was kept with reservations or suggestions that it can be improved/changed/not deleted to make more sense. An example of this is what's just recently been changed on this page.
 * Basically Greg L has been participating in one unflinching smear campaign (most likely) because I frequently try to keep his wiki-friend, Epeefleche's, questionable edits in check. (Such as a mass campaign to add peacocky ethnicity-related "See Also" links to literally hundreds of articles -- See this addition to the Paul Newman article). Another user (User:Wjemather) that tried to do the same had recently been subject to an interaction ban with Epeefleche --- for the good of both editors -- but was also met with a barrage of harassment and taunting from Greg L along the way. I had tried to instigate a self-imposed interaction ban with both Greg L and Epeefleche but my comment was merely deleted from Epeefleche's talk page. Bull dog123  18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Bulldog -- As I've pointed out numerous times, you have been hounding me. Most recently with regard to this page.  I've asked you to stop hounding, and disruptive editing.  Others have pointed out your disruptive behavior.  You've ignored all, and continued to hound me disruptively -- most recently to many pages that reference this list.  I'm disappointed that you insist on this disruptive behavior, and in ignoring consensus admonition of your behavior.  I'll look at the diffs you have directed us to, though, and see what my view is as to them.  Also -- A number of editors have noted the SPA nature of Bull's edits.  As well as Bull's tendentious edits.  Seems to be a consensus on that score, actually.  I agree with that consensus.  Bull is also disturbingly aligning himself above with WJEMather, upon whom a unilateral interaction ban was imposed because of WJE's behavior -- which Bull indicates is similar to Bull's own.  Bull actually states an untruth above -- the interaction ban was imposed on WJE, because WJE was hounding me (as Bull is here) -- not for "the good of both editors" as Bull untruthfully states above, but because WJE was engaged in inappropriate disruptive hounding.  Bull's effort to misstate the facts here is disturbing -- and not to be tolerated on wp.  We can't have honest discussions if editors misstate the facts.  As other editors have also pointed out to Bull, his editing in this manner leads to Bull losing the assumption of good faith, which is a rebuttable presumption.  Also -- as Bull knows, I asked both him and WJE to stop posting on my page because I found their edits to be disruptive, and as Bull should know I am completely within my rights to do so ... and, as I will reiterate, Bull should stop posting on my talk page.  One last thing -- instead of adhering to the self-imposed interaction ban Bull considered, he engaged in yet another series of hounding disruptive edits, relating to this very page.  That's not good.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had agreed to the self-imposed interaction ban, I would have not reverted your spamming of links and instead reported it to someone else. You had not agreed to it --- you merely deleted it off your talk page. Bull dog123  20:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No agreement required -- by editing on wp, you agree to abide by its rules. One rule is not to edit disruptively.  Another is to not wikihound--the behavior you and WJE engaged in, for which he is now banned.  There was of course no spamming involved -- yet again of your statements of untruth, just like the one referenced above.  I am -- again (you seem not to "hear" -- fully within my rights deleting your posts from my talkpage -- you and WJE seem to have a problem with that, but he has now been banned from doing it.  You are warned here -- yet again -- not to post on my talkpage, not to edit disruptively, and not to hound me.  Editors from all over are warning you to stop it; you seem not to be respecting consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... yes, agreement is required for this type of truce to work. I'm not going to allow you to hound my contributions if I agree to no longer interact with you. It doesn't work that way. If you want to instate the self-imposed interaction ban between us now, I'll be happy to comply with it and will hold a pledge that if I break it you can report it as a broken contract (punishable by whatever you want). Of course, that requires that we both agree to the following points:
 * Bulldog/Epeefleche will not edit editor Epeefleche/Bulldog's user and user talk space
 * Bulldog/Epeefleche will not reply to Epeefleche/Bulldog's discussions
 * Bulldog/Epeefleche will not make reference to or comment on editor Epeefleche/Bulldog anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly
 * And finally...
 * Bulldog/Epeefleche will not undo editor Epeefleche/Bulldog's edits to any page
 * If you're so concerned about my supposed hounding of you, then there should be no reason you can't agree to these terms. AfDs/CfDs are still fair game presuming neither of us comment on each other. I'm signing my part of this contract right now (if you do too): I agree to these terms - Bull dog123  22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you? Bull dog123  22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to wonder whether all those editors/sysops saying Bull's editing is disruptive may be on to something. In any event -- sorry to be repetitive -- no, Bull is obliged, by editing on wp, to follow the above-indicated wp rules.  Period.  It's the same as WJE's hounding and other disruption -- WJE was blocked, and a ban was imposed on him.  No "agreement" was required for WJE to be subjected to these remedial steps.  Similarly, no "agreement" is required for Bull to stop his disruptive editing.  Bull's continued disruption is a problem.  This isn't just my personal view -- he has now heard it from a number of editors, even this weekend.  I reiterate my request that Bull self-revert his deletions of completely appropriate entries on articles that he hounded me to, that refer to this article.  That is disruptive.  I've pointed it out and requested this multiple times now.  Bull -- this isn't a game, where you seek to intimidate some editors so that they do not disagree with you, and then seek to force other editors to not speak the truth as to your mis-statements, hounding, disruptive editing, and lack of adherence to consensus ... with their "prize" being that you stop your inappropriate hounding.  I understand that is your suggestion.  That's not how it works.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. So - if I can sift through all that - your answer is "No."  Bull dog123  04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My answer is -- again -- (and please take this as yet another warning and request) -- please stop hounding me, editing disruptively, and making mis-statements. And please self-revert your deletions of completely appropriate entries on articles that you hounded me to, that refer to this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The intro
Alright, since the previous section seems to be about something else I'm just starting a new discussion. The intro clearly needs trimming; it's a lot of sourced info but most of it is not particularly deserving of discussion in the lead before the actual list. A short lead is certainly good, but one which succinctly sums up the topic of the article. If memory serves me right, this was one of those cases of lots of info being added to show that a subject is notable during an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Outstanding! Thank you. We’re here to build and improve the project. Thank you for your contributions, Yaksar. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks! (assuming that isn't sarcasm, of course). That being said, moving forward here might be kind of difficult, since I'm personally in favor of scrapping the whole intro as it is and rewriting a more fitting one collaboratively. Right now none of the tidbits are important enough or broad enough in coverage to warrant mention in the intro (or in a list article). I'd be in favor of an intro that basically reads as just a broad intro which sums up the topic (something alone the lines of "This is a list of black people who have won or been nominated for a Golden Globe Award" followed by maybe a brief sentence or two on the first nominee and the first winner? Although I'm open for better suggestions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess some basic numerical info could also be good (the first nomination was in year X, # of black people who have won so far, most nominations were in this category) provided that it's sourced and not OR.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn’t sarcasm. I have a healthy appreciation for anyone who steps up to the plate, rolls up his sleeves, and works to improve articles rather than tear them down, delete stuff, tag when they don’t get their way, and pretty much disrupt things for everyone else. As for being WP:BOLD, if your are an experienced wikipedian and have good skills at working in a collaborative writing environment, then have at it. Greg L (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Yaksar -  can also apply to articles that have "trivia" sections, not exclusively lists. It seems that's what the lead is at this moment. Maybe  would have been better? Bull dog123 00:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead rewrite seems like it would make sense. At this point though, if the templates are causing so much drama for some reason that I can't totally discern, it may make sense not to add them in at all, provided we can commit to fixing it up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaksar -- that sounds like a good suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

List fix and standardization
As a separate issue from the one above, we've also got a lot of work to do with the actual formatting of the lists. Some are in chronological order, some are in reverse, they have different color schemes and bolding based on winners; I'm not good at that sort of formatting stuff, but hopefully someone can help. I'm going to add a cleanup tag to the article to hopefully attract a bit of attention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm totally ok with the cleanup tag being removed, but I personally feel this should be done if there's a more specific replacement or, even better, if the lists can be fixed up. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Request that Bulldog123 self-revert deletions relating to this list
This repeats my earlier requests to Bulldog123. That he self-revert his non-consensus, disruptive, below-indicated deletions. Of "see also's" in articles of actors on this list. The "see also's" point to this list.

Background—Bull's non-consensus views. Bull first, in a number of comments at AfD, argued vociferously for deletion of this list – the List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. See here. Bull failed. Bull's view was non-consensus. It was considered, and was rejected by the community. The list was deemed a "keep".

Bull had made similar arguments, which were also rejected by the community, at:
 * 1) Bull's failed effort (first to merge, and then to re-name) the category "African American artists" here (the result: "keep as is");
 * 2) Bull's failed AfD of "African American film directors" here (the result: "keep"); and
 * 3) Bull's failed nomination for deletion of the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees here (the result: "keep").

Bull's non-consensus mass deletions. Having failed to delete this list, Bull then followed me to articles of actors on this list. Articles Bull had never edited before. In which I had added "see also's", pointing to this list. Bull deleted the "see also's" from the following 27 Black actors and actresses bios, with the indicated edit summaries. Even marking some edit summaries "minor"--a completely inappropriate obfuscation.


 * 03:47, March 27, 2011 Beyoncé Knowles ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:46, March 27, 2011 Prince (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:45, March 27, 2011 m Whoopi Goldberg ‎
 * 03:43, March 27, 2011 Whoopi Goldberg ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:42, March 27, 2011 Eddie Murphy ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:41, March 27, 2011 Samuel L. Jackson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:41, March 27, 2011 m Sidney Poitier
 * 03:40, March 27, 2011 Seal (musician) ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:40, March 27, 2011 Morgan Freeman ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:39, March 27, 2011 Halle Berry ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:38, March 27, 2011 Denzel Washington ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:38, March 27, 2011 Queen Latifah ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:37, March 27, 2011 Will Smith ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:37, March 27, 2011 m Cuba Gooding, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:36, March 27, 2011 Bill Cosby
 * 03:35, March 27, 2011 Dorothy Dandridge ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:35, March 27, 2011 Jennifer Hudson ‎ (rm SA behaving like categories)
 * 03:34, March 27, 2011 Don Cheadle ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:33, March 27, 2011 Louis Gossett, Jr. ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:33, March 27, 2011 Forest Whitaker ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:32, March 27, 2011 Alfre Woodard ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:32, March 27, 2011 Ving Rhames ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:31, March 27, 2011 S. Epatha Merkerson ‎ (rm SA behaving like category)
 * 03:30, March 27, 2011 Tracy Morgan ‎ (rm SA)
 * 03:30, March 27, 2011 Mo'Nique ‎ (rm)
 * 03:29, March 27, 2011 Chiwetel Ejiofor ‎ (rem See Also spam)
 * 03:29, March 27, 2011 Terrence Howard ‎ (rm See Also)

Reactions to Bull's deletions. Bull failed to self-revert, despite repeated requests that he do so, and consensus approbation of his actions. See below; click through to see full comments and context.

I asked Bull to self-revert his deletions on March 27, March 28, and April 4.

Editor Shearonink noted on March 28 that Bull made similar deletions of the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees link from the Whoopi Goldberg article here. He also pointed out that Bull marked the edit as "minor", which "'signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions... A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.'"

Sysop Bearian reverted Bull's above deletion at Beyonce Knowles, indicating it was valid to include the see also. Bull then again deleted the entry. Without any explanation other than: "Undid revision 421703487 by Bearian (talk) rv – WP:NPA".

Editor Adabow then also reverted Bull's deletion.

Editor GregL agreed that Bull's deletions were inappropriate.

Sysop DGG wrote to Bull on April 3, in part: "'the edits you have been making in removing group identity lists and categories from articles after the categories or lists have survived an XfD discussion, are purely destructive and irrational. I see from your talk page history you have received many warnings about this, and if I had not been myself involved in the arguments about these lists and categories, I would now consider blocking block you, and I will not object if any other admin does so.'"

And: "'... many comments here and elsewhere certainly were objections to what you were doing, and would be reasonably seen as warnings not to continue, and I am pointing that out to you in case you had not realized, which I very much doubt. Second, ... it is wrong to try to subvert a keep decision by removing content.... But even that we were opposed is enough for me to explain that just this is the reason why it is not I who will block you.... That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to.... If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them.'"

Reaction to prior similar mass deletions by Bull. Bull had made similar deletions of "see also's" regarding another list. Leading sysop Ironholds to write Bull on February 3: "'Could you explain exactly what that means, here, for example? Many of these people are quite obviously notable, and a lack of evidence of notability should be followed by a deletion discussion, not the removal of a 'see also' section',"

and

"'Clearly there's at least no consensus that the concept isn't notable. If you wish to establish consensus that this is not the case, perhaps by MfDing that category, fine – but until then, I'm following WP:BRD and reverting your edits. Please do not restore them until you can establish some sort of consensus that this kind of action is acceptable.'"

Prior warnings. Bull has been warned a number of times for disruptive editing, hounding, editing against consensus, and mass deletions—going back at least until 2009. The below examples are far from exhaustive.

Bull's general approach was in the past criticized by a number of editors as far back as this June 2009 AN/I.

Editor Yolgnu warned Bull in June 2009, for deleting content.

Editor Hmains wrote Bull on December 17, 2010: "'... virtually all your attempts to make such changes have failed and continue to fail.... you and WP would be better served ... [if you did not engage] in ongoing attempts to re-purpose the existing articles by deleting content ... one article at a time—without discussion or agreement from anyone else involved with the articles'."

Hmains warned Bull of vandalism on December 20, 2010, writing: "You refuse to obtain consensus. Unilateral blanking of established content is vandalism."

Editor Moxy wrote Bull on March 3: "'Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is unacceptable. This is a proposal that in general did not gain consensus as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups. If attempts at deletion to the individual pages are unsuccessful (that is its clear that the majority agree the image is ok and referenced) a dispute tag on the article is inappropriate.'"

I warned Bull for ignoring consensus and editing against consensus on March 3, March 4, April 3 I warned Bull that his editing was disruptive on November 18, 2010 (for unwarranted mass deletions), March 31, April 3 and April 4. I also warned Bull for hounding me on March 3, March 28, April 3 and April 4.

Reiterating request. I reiterate my request that Bull self-revert his above-indicated deletions. They were inappropriate to begin with. And the consensus of the above-indicated editors demonstrates that his deletions are non-consensus. Bull's failure to self-revert his inappropriate deletions in accordance with wide-ranging consensus, after having been warned for similar activities for an extended period of time, is disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bulldog, your edit history (500 edits ≤March 2011, here) shows that you could quite fairly be regarded as single-purpose account wherein your edits are characterized by the pattern of activity as outlined in Epeefleche’s above post (which amounts to tendentious editing, which is in turn, disruptive). The proper choice here is to do as Epeefleche requests; just go back and revert yourself. Greg L (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be redundant, but I want to put in my two cents that Bulldog123 should self-revert whenever possible on these edits. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright everyone
Ok everyone, sorry if this comes out as a bit harsh, and understand I don't mean this towards any particular side. There's clearly a dispute going on here, and one that, at this point, may very well not resolve itself. And I'm not patient enough to read through it all, so I'm not weighing in. But please, pleaaaasseee do me a favor and keep the discussion to your talk pages, or, should it be necessary, to whatever AN or RfCU any of you (on either side of this) think would be best. I'm not saying someone's right and someone's wrong; I really don't want to get tangled up in this. But honestly, these lengthy back and forths are really taking away from what I hope can be actual efforts at discussing improvements to articles. Thanks so much.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you find it disturbing. But my above post and the edits it concerns relate directly to this list.  So this list talk page is very much an appropriate place for editors interested in it to see it.  It is posted as a separate thread so as not to encumber any other discussion. I tried to forestall the need for the post w/a shorter request, as you know, to no avail.  I've also posted here rather than take one of the harsher measures you suggested.  I've asked Bulldog not to post on my talk page, so that approach is not workable.  As to the other list issues, as you know I've sought to work with you on them, have made many substantive edits to do my best to improve the list, and have responded to your comments on the list--most recently agreeing with a suggestion you made.  I appreciate that your goal is to improve the list.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Epeefleche. Indeed, there is a pattern to Bulldog’s edits and that affects this article. Not undoing what he’s done to this article (industrial-strength reliance upon the [delete] key) will amount to nothing more of what we’ve seen out of him in the past. But the matter at hand is this article. He voted in an AfD to get rid of it and after that failed, simply deleted large portions if it. That’s not what is called “building the project.” And there doesn’t seem to be a consensus in support of such draconian edits; other editors had put a great deal of effort trying to add what they thought was encyclopedic content. As you might imagine, it can be quite dispiriting to have another editor simply delete much of it because said editor isn’t trying to *improve* the article and instead objects to its very existence. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)