Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__==The addendum== In this section, I will note clarifications requested and/or made to the review after posting, as well as any additional comments that I noticed after the cut-off revision of the review.

If there is anything in the review that needs clarification, please leave a note at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum.

An important clarification request to address is with respect to potential involvement. The question was raised by Ward at #The discussion (a), and Faustian at my talk page (reproduced below). As such, I added a disclosure note above the review. In the interests of full disclosure I believe you ought to state that you had taken a side in the issue and argued in favor of one of the positions: (b). Although your review is based on what was said before you had taken a side, it was written after you had argued on that side. This probably needs to be made clear from the start of your review.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Degree of involvement
 * ✅ (c) –xenotalk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw your disclosure statement - thanks, although I feel strongly that you ought to explicitly state which side you took.Faustian (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a side and re-iterating past positions that led to my determination of consensus are not the same thing. If admins were not allowed to do the latter, we would have to walk about with our mops, heads down, completely mute, and enact consensus without discussing our decisions. I don't think that would be good for anyone. –xenotalk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except you did more than reiterate prior positions, you advocated them. Briefly, and in a limited way, but you were not nuetral.  That's okay, you have the right to your opinion, but it should be made clear IMO.Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm... that must come from my background in argumentation. I will copy your comment to the addendum section. –xenotalk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The report was also posted for review by neutral parties at the Administrators' noticeboard. It remained there for close to a week, and the conclusion was supported with no concerns raised as to the manner in which it was reached.


 * Changelog
 * Minor changes within 2 hours after transclusion. Grammar, formatting, plus a few dates.
 * Fixed Martin's entry as he was in the compromise section in an earlier draft.
 * Clarifying header and description.
 * Amend per Talk:Rorschach test (permlink) cf. Faustian #2 & my reply.
 * This change came after Faustian noticed a few missing voices and made note by editing the review directly.
 * Added comment from Faustian per request below.
 * Per clarification request below.
 * Disclosure note as discussed above.
 * Per clarification request, added LK's statement in a thread I had initially excluded, with some additional commentary re: involvement.
 * Per clarification request, expanded on the AN3 comment to make it clear it ended in mutual agreement.
 * To clarify the position of the IP added in change 5.
 * Minor clarification plus date of comment, importing proper formatting and linking from original quote.
 * Moved table info to footnotes and transcluded addendum.
 * Per clarification request, split a section and clarified that the edit war was an isolated incident.
 * Also made it clear that Faustian's approach has largely been one of brokering compromises between the two sides.
 * A caveat about word choice and making it clear that the dispute has been a civil and rational exchange of opinions, fix a typo.
 * Adding further comment from LK per clarification request. Minor format fixes.
 * Adding further comment from Saxifrage per clarification request. Added difflink to LK's.
 * Fixed one user from rename, added links to now-archived discussions.
 * Added permlink in disclosure statement and transclude now-archived discussion about consensus review iteself.

In the original report, I cut off my review at revision 291659328 as after that point I had made comments. However, that doesn't mean additional voices should not be heard. I will note them below and add placeholders in the original report.
 * Additional voices
 * commented at Talk:Rorschach test: (13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Having looked at some of the literature I think the image should be moved to the top and the rest of the images should be added aswell in an image gallery at the bottom. (23:30) My comment about placement of the image in the lead is what I feel is correct per Wikipedia. We do not need convincing argument to put the image in the lead we need convincing arguments not to put it in the lead. I have not been convinced of the legitimacy of the above argument.

The clarification requests
Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page, but preferably below (make each request on its own line prefixed with a *bullet and signed individually) and I will incorporate accordingly. –xenotalk 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you just want to make a quick clarification or affirmation of your position, see below at.


 * (none currently)

The clarifications
Below you can make a quick clarification or affirmation based on your current position towards the placement of the image. Simply add your name to the list. Brief commentary is acceptable, but for longer statements, use the section above the clarification requests section.


 * I feel the image belongs in the lead and would object to it being moved.
 * Extensive explanation of my point of view is in the archives. Chillum  14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. My opinions are in the archives (see a summary here.)  hmwith  τ   15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time since I was active on this page, but the same principle applies: we do not censor images out of deference to false copyright claims, or concerns that the info will somehow invalidate tests (info on other articles could change results on other tests), or because some people want to protect something related to their occupation. DreamGuy (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is as demonstrated at Talk:Rorschach_test/2009_consensus_review. We can not possibly hope to accommodate every editor's personal viewpoint, and to try to do so would result in this project becoming utterly worthless. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) in the cylindrical shape of the neuron..
 * Xeno accurately represents my position, which remains absolutist, in his review. Joe 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, Schutz (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accurate. In principle, I don't mind moving the image "below the fold" so long as we have an image at the top that is clearly appropriate, but since I object to the portrait, an outline, or a fake inkblot, I can't think what image could possibly satisfy me.  I had indicated at some point that I was amenable to including an outline at the top but honestly I don't feel comfortable with it, and was saying that only to try to get the conflict resolved through a lot less effort than Xeno put forth in this review.  Mango juice talk 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Xeno has summarized my position well. I have watched this page for years.  First to get the image unhidden (was amazed we were actually hiding an image) then extensive debates to relocate it to most relevant location. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am of this opinion. I came to this page after the compromise of having the page below the fold was already enacted, and still argued on the talk page for want of seeing it lead the document. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image definitely belongs in the lead, a group of experts wanting to suppress the image in the public domain is not sufficient justification to hide / replace with a fake / etc. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someguy1221 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the ten official inkblots should be shown, with at least one of them in the lead section. Prolog (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Halo (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to the party, but I still stand by my earlier comments that the image belongs in the lead as it is a suitable depiction of the article's subject. --clpo13(talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am open to other options, if convincing arguments were put forth for moving the image, but presently feel it belongs in the lead.
 * My position is as expressed here and here, and as summarized by xeno. I would not object to moving the image to the "Methods" or "Test materials" section as long as that move was supported by a good editorial reason (i.e. better illustrating the text content of the section) and not just a desire to suppress the image. Having an image in the lead is desirable but, in my opinion, not essential. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Longer explanation in the archives but this argument by Black Falcon summarizes my position well. Rossami (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the image belongs in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section.
 * This follows wikipedia policy regarding consensus which calls for synthesizing the diverse opinions of various editors and reaching a compromise, taking into account the opinions of editors (not a tiny minority, but 1/3 of those involved) who feel that image ought to be limited for various reasons and those do not want it limited. Otherwise, consensus is reduced to just a vote, which is contrary to consensus policy. Plus, the article is about the test not inkblots and the materials or methods section is the most strictly accurate place for them.Faustian (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the image should not be shown in the article at all.
 * I believe that no real Rorschach inkblot image should be shown in this article, for the reasons I have already given. But if this is not possible I would support an image only in the "Methods" or "Test materials" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When psychologists administer this test, the results are based (in part) on the persons spontaneous reaction to the blot. If they have seen it before (like on Wikipedia) that may well influence their response when taking the test. Therefore that person is then deprived of the opportunity to receive the best possible test results, compromising their mental health care. Monnica Williams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
 * I believe that, even as unexpected as it may sound, in this case the images should not be displayed. There are precedents, and it is contrary to the humane reasons why people gather knowledge in the first place. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am confirming my position in the original report
 * Hi xeno, thanks for letting me know about your review of the Rorschach discussion. I just write to confirm that I agree with your summary of my position. --Itub (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you classified me correctly. You may also be interested to note that there's been a bit of a history of attempts to delete these images from Commons, too: Commons:Talk:Rorschach inkblot test. Not sure how relevant it is as far as English Wikipedia is concerned but it involved pretty much the same reasons. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no preference where the image should be placed. My opinion being that as an encyclopedia, the image should not be removed/hidden for the sake of censorship. &#032;- oahiyeel talk 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I prefer the image in the lead, I am willing to accept placing it elsewhere for the sake of compromise in order to accommodate other editors' opinions and bring an end to the dispute.


 * Other quick clarification

from Faustian

 * I believe that I ought to also be in the compromise section. This is what I have been doing consistantly.  Along those lines, I object to your characterization of me as "argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed."  This seems to be putting an inaccurate negative twist on what I have been doing.  I have been arguing to integrate ethical concerns with the need to provide good information.  While arguing against those who would have the image in the lead, I have argued for ways of integrating their views with ethical concerns.  In fact, one of the compromisers, Diego, compromised with exactly the version that I proposed: . Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that you have been recently arguing from a position of compromise for some time, however your actual position was made clear with your earlier edits. I have included your comment below your listing. –xenotalk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at my history I have been calling for compromise on this article for a very long time, not recently. It's always been central to my approach of editing on any article and I've even been awarded barnstars for such behavior on other topics (just scroll down my user page). I've always valued the collaborative approach and have tried my best to be collaborative.  This is why I take issue with how I was characterized.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An approach to be admired no matter the dispute. When things settle down and I get through your other requests, I'll take a closer look at this. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please do. I consider collaborative editing to be very important and do not wish to be mislabelled. Although I do feel that it is irrespionsible and unnecessary to show the images, I have consistently for years worked on crafting compromises that take mine and other positions into account.  Describing me as "Has edit-warred[5] and argued consistently for over two years to keep the image as suppressed as possible as the climate of consensus changed" seems to ascribe to me motivations of bad faith and I hope that this can be reworded.  Let me help you by diggin up examples of my consistent attempts to forge consensus through compromise:
 * By September 2007, I went from my original position of preferring simulations of inkblots to defending a compromise version that someone else had created, in which the images are hidden and require a click: . Here in October 2007 I expressed openness (albeit with reservations) for a further compromise by another editor involving unhiding the image but placing it further down, although I continued to advocate for the previous compromise of keeping the hidden image:
 * Not accepting hidden pic. Will accept pic placed down the page with warning at the top as long as warning flows with the text of the article.Geni 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A pic further down on the page with a warning is better than one on the top with no warning. It at least doesn't automatically force anyone looking up Rorschach on wikipedia to see the image. It allows them the choice of not reading the rest of the article in order to avoid the image. But the fundamental problem is still there. By placing the image farther down, you are still not giving those who choose to read the entire article the choice of whether or not they would like to see the image. Shouldn't readers have the right to read the entire article without being forced to see the image?Faustian 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another agreement to a proposed compromise solution, a few days later:. In March 2008 I agreed to the unhide but compromised by moving the image further down: :Oops, my mistake. :-) That said, would you object to moving the image to the "Test materials" section? In that section, the image would illuminate a number of points including: "the basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless", [s]upporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes", and "recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)  That would work, too, and I will move it there.Faustian (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)  And with that latter compromise the page was stable for about a year, until the current bickering.  I will note that we seem to have reached the point where no further compromise seems possible because there is nothing left for the minority to agree to other than a version that it 100% in the majority's favor.  I thought consensus was compromise, not changing the goals posts every few months until in the end it's just majority preference with no minority input.
 * Back to my point, again, I feel that given my history I ought to be in the compromise category. Hopefully the background I found for you will help you make a change sooner than later.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As for my edit warring, in the example you linked to I was reverting an anonymous editor who made changes without going to the talk page. My 2+ year history of involvement on this article has few edit warring incidents, so I feel it gives ann unfair impression of me when in my description one of the first said about me is that I "edit-warred".  I request that you reword my description.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I believe I have addressed your above concerns, but let me know if I missed anything.
 * Faustian, it is my honest opinion that you are in the appropriate section. The "Editors compromising" section is for those who, preferring open display, are acceding to some suppression in the interests of compromise/diplomacy/avoiding edit wars/etc. You, on the other hand, admit that you have been acceding to (increasingly open) display since editors, over time, no longer wanted to accept whatever form of suppression was in place. That is, your starting position is "prefer not to show at all". The fact that you broker compromises is to be commended, but doesn't change this fact. Am I wrong? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your description is absolutely correct (although my preferred position has shifted to wanting the image hidden with a click to see the actual image, although we have moved beyond that). I just feel that compromise can work from both directions - some compromise from the position  of let's show it completely, others compromise from the opposite direction.Faustian (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on this: also needs to removed from the "Editors who disagreed with the suppression of the image" and placed in the compromise section: "Umm, look, I think I've made myself clear. The compromise of hiding the image with a warning that vieing it may invalidate a test is a very good one. I don't have a problem with that." Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ThanksFaustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In future edits, for the sake of accuracy, if you must use only 2 numbers I suggest you place compromisers together with no "suppressors". Incidentally, we seem to have a ratio of about 1/3 to 2/3.  Is there any way of coming together or do the 1/3 people don't count when the actual article content is considered?Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I refer to numbers in the future, I will use all three numbers. I don't think we can lump compromisers cleanly into either polar side, some lean one way, some lean the other. Your question (does the minority not "count") is a good one, but beyond the scope of my report and probably best taken up at WT:Consensus and sometime in the future, when things settle down, I will try to compose my thoughts on this in further detail. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And you probably should have included Lawrence Khoo's clearest comments: "For what it's worth, some images on the page on Bahá'u'lláh and on Muhammad are also controversial. The current consensus on those pages (see Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo and Talk:Muhammad/images respectively), is to keep the images, but to set them further down the page so that those who do not want to view the images have some forewarning, and can make a choice in the matter." LK (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC).cheers,Faustian (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I had initially not included this section as I had participated, but as this comment occurred prior to that, it should be fine. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Faustian (talk)
 * Thanks for including my comments. Could you recategorize MarkAnthonyBoyle [some redundancy redacted] and could you remove Black Falcon from the list?  Thanks....Faustian (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Already ✅ and per above and below, respectively. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * wrt BlackFalcon
 * Based on his comments here: in which he indicated no specific preference (and thus he cannot be categorized) Black Falcon ought to be removed from the list. Faustian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read Black Falcon's clarification, it seems to me sufficiently clear that he disagrees with suppression of the image strictly in deference to the potential harm argument. He is willing to entertain the moving of the image for editorial reasons ("if there is a reason to do this that does not rely solely or primarily on a desire to suppress the image"). –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, however prior to May 22nd he did support placing it in the test materials section and since then he hasn't made a decision. Therefore he shouldn't be lumped together with those wanting it in the lead.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In March 2008, he disagreed with the hiding (via collapsible table) of the image which was the issue at the time, so I think he is appropriately placed. However, if he tells me that he does not belong in that section, I will move him. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His solution to the hiding was to place the image in the test materials section, unhidden. If he feels that it truly belongs there his catgory should be swiitched.  If he is unsure of where it belongs he should not be in any category.Could you ask him if he prefers being in either section or in no section as an undecided?Faustian (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will ask him. I am also pondering a suitably neutral way to contact all the editors I've counted to make sure I haven't misrepresented them. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As both of you have correctly noted, my position was and is that the location of the image should be determined based on where it best fits the text, regardless of whether that is above or below the fold, with the ultimate purpose of improving readers' understanding of the subject. I am not so much concerned about not having an image for the lead as I am about letting a desire to "soft suppress" affect the decision of where where the image is placed.

Part of me thinks that it may be worth, at this point, to compromise for the sake of compromise itself, just so that this dispute can be over. I do not doubt that most parties on both sides have pursued it in good faith, but I also think that it has largely run its course, in that there is little or nothing new to be said about the issue (desirability/undesirability) of suppression. Regardless of which particular column my name is added to, there is at least a two-thirds majority opposed to the very principle of suppressing the image. To me, this suggests that any continuing discussion about the placement of the image should leave alone the issue of suppression and focus on standard, editorial reasons. One mark more or less in a particular section won't make much difference.

By the way, I know that most of the discussion so far has considered the options of placement in the lead and in the "Test materials" section, but I would like to offer a middle-point: the "Methods" section, which starts with the following text: "There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored. After the individual..." I think that this could be a fitting location for the image—i.e. the place where the image best serves to illustrate the text. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. However, I don't think it should be moved because it could harm readers.  hmwith  τ   15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So would you be willing to accept the image in the test materials section rather than in the lead?Faustian (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there was consensus that was where it fit best in the article and there wasn't a better image of the test. However, at the current time, the inkblot is the best image to use, so it should go on the top right (per WP:MOS). I can't think of an image that would be better in the lead, besides perhaps an image of the test being given, but if someone did find one, that new image could go at the top. This article should be treated no differently than any other article. The best image of the topic in the lead, others in relevant sections. Normal procedure.  hmwith  τ   17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From Ward3001

 * I'm sure "Rorschach" is your least favorite word right now, and understandably so. Let me reiterate my appreciation for all your hard work. I know you have your hands full right now, but when you get a chance I would appreciate your considering a point I wish to make here. You mentioned the AN3 report on me (Was the subject of a recent AN3 report), which I think is acceptable, EXCEPT you have not mentioned that Garycompugeek is as guilty as I was of edit warring. I don't think it is sufficient to simply provide a link to the AN3 report without mentioning our mutual guilt in edit warring. I'm not asking you to accuse him of anything, but I think it is only fair if you mention the report about me, there should be some statement as to his involvement. This is not a vendetta against him, just a desire to have a fair and balanced reporting of the situation. If you feel it best not to bring him up in relation to that issue, I think you should remove any mention of it whatsoever. If you disagree, I would appreciate an explanation. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Ward. I hope you, as well, realize I am attempting to remain as neutral as I can throughout this and am certainly willing to look at any instances including this one where you feel I may have fallen short of the mark. I would also like to re-iterate that I have no problem with professionals/experts editing Wikipedia articles in their chosen fields (it only makes sense... I edit video games - perhaps the only thing I can consider myself an expert on ;>). As to your clarification request: ✅  Is this better? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite acceptable. And I fully understand your comments about experts. I personally think that Wikipedia should have some degree of editorial oversight by established experts for some articles, but that's a much broader issue that goes beyond any disagreements (or agreements) between you and me. Thanks again for all your efforts on the Rorschach issue, including this most recent request by me. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From others
I would like it emphasized that my position now is, consensus on this page should not be considered in isolation from consensus on other pages with controversial images. Wikipedia should have a reasonably standardized policy on controversial images. As it stands now, consensus on Wikipedia appears to be, to include clearly relevant controversial images, but to place them further down the article so that readers have some choice in the matter. LK (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From Lawrencekhoo
 * ✅ . –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * From Saxifrage
 * For what it's worth, I no longer hold the view expressed in my original comment. The inkblot in question is already extensively disseminated (Google Image Search). There is no prospect of putting this egg back into its shell, and it would be absurd for Wikipedia to undermine its editorial integrity to preserve a secrecy that is non-existent. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, just to clarify, do you fit into any of the above pre-written statements? (If not, I'll just indent your section and include this comment below it) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The categories are mostly about placement, which I don't have an opinion on. Rather, I just don't think the alleged secrecy of the image should be a factor in placement. I wouldn't "object" to it being put elsewhere than the lede so long as it was on grounds other than hiding it, so I suppose the best fit is "prefer the lede, but I'd rather see the dispute end." — Saxifrage ✎ 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Based on the above, you don't move from your spot in the review, but I'll add your comments below your line item. ✅ –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)