User talk:Before My Ken/archives 1 2005-2007

ARCHIVE PAGE 1: 2005 - 2007

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mets colors
Can you cite a source for the claim that the Mets team colors were deliberately intended to match the city flag, as well as the conventional wisdom that they were taken from Dodgers and Giants colors? Wahkeenah 17:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can -- aside from my own memories from news reports when the Mets were started up. It's on the team's website, in their history timeline:

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nym/history/timeline1.jsp

''November 16, 1961 - [...] The Mets' colors are Dodger blue and Giant orange, symbolic of the return of National League baseball to New York after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California. Blue and Orange are also the official colors of New York State.''

Their mistake is that blue and orange are the offical color of New York City, and not new York State, but otherwise this substantiates that the choice of blue and orange was influenced by the official colors of the Mets home location. Edfitz 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bingo! Now you have something you can use, in case somebody reverts it again. Now this little tidbit becomes a little clearer, too: Shea Stadium was originally decorated with little orange and blue squares. That stands to reason. But I also have a souvenir bag from the 1964 World's Fair, which of course was next door. It's printed in two colors: Orange and Blue. I never made the connection before, but now it's obvious. Good job! d:) Wahkeenah 18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Another welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 06:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Originally posted on my user page, and moved here for the sake of... Well, just for the sake of it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Godfather II plot
The reverted version of the Godfather Part II's plot is overly cumbersome. I partiticpated in plot-line re-writes for Batman (1989 film), Batman Returns, Batman Begins and Alien Vs. Predator and the simple, condensed re-writes were generally accepted as being better than the spoiler-filled, overly descriptive plot descriptions that existed before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the entries for films exist only to give a general outline of the film's basic plot structure and production. These long-winded plot descriptions are unneccesary and not in keeping with encyclopedic entries. I ask that my re-write be left for commentary, as opposed to simply reverting. Comment posted on 03:26, May 30, 2006 by Flash-Gordon


 * I disagree with your contentions pretty much entirely. What I want to see in a plot synopsis is a synopsis of the plot, strangely enough, a retelling of the story of the picture.  What you provided was a description of the storyline, which is not the same thing at all.  I would have no problem with some parts of what you wrote being included in the lead paragraph which generally describes the film, but I do not think they are sufficient as retelling of the plot.


 * I also disagree with your contention that your radical changes should be left in place to garner commentary. What will happen then is that people will edit your version, adding, deleting or altering things, and the older version will be lost entirely.  Instead, since it is you that wish to make a radical change, you should participate in a discussion about that potential change before making the change. unfutz 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for completely ignoring my request and refusing to discuss which version of the plot section is preferred by the users. I have reverted, and will continue to do so until you engage in a discussion of the merits of each. unfutz 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Godfather
It's usually best for a third party to introduce sandbox changes as a balance point. &mdash; Deckiller 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Godfather films in popular culture
An editor has nominated The Godfather films in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IP
It's okay. By the way, I'm not completely against "in popular culture" articles; it's just the way they are handled. For example, a google search finds a few hits for scholarly or critical articles discussing the series' influence on popular culture. Clearly, it's necessary to at least mention that the Godfather has become a major part of popular culture, but the key is how to handle it. We cannot just have a list of appearences; we have to take it a step further and provide a more prosified coverage with reliable sources. Although not completely up this alley, here's a good example of a start: MIT in popular culture. &mdash; Deckiller 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, that put a smile on my face. You were quite literally on someone else's talk page, conducting a conversation with yourself, defending an allegation against yourself that you made (against yourself) on behalf of someone that hadn't made any allegation. What's more you were doing a pretty thorough job of prosecuting (and defending) yourself! I really don't think anyone's going to accuse you of being me masquerading as you and even if they did, I'm not you (pretending to be me in order to masquerade as you) so it wouldn't be true and so wouldn't actually matter 172.206.217.17 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- that was pretty absurd, wasn't it. Oh well, life among the 1's and 0's Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An oversight on my part, HagermanBot. Ed Fitzgerald 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a signature test Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale
I you checked you wouold find that the "controversy" of Casino Royale casting was mentioned before in intro but it was removed by someone else ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 10:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tweens and issues with them
Unless you're Tolkien or one of his Hobbits (it's 20-32 by the way), "tween" refers to children and pre-teens. You meant to say "young adults," and there are many young adults out there who, dare I say it, know a thing or two. Especially about Wikipedia policy. And before you ask, I'm twenty-six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.222.152 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks, I'm aware of Tolkien's use of the word, but I'm using it to refer to the real world, not a fantasy one. The coinage (in a real-world human context) is not mine, I picked it up somewhere or another, and it definitely refers to the "in between" years while at the same time alluding to the "twenties."  In our current evolutionary state, there are particular parts of the brain which don't actually become fully operational until about 25 years old, and this is the end of the "tweens" for humans, when the brain is (finally) fully developed.
 * Sure there are young adults out there who know quite a bit, and also a whole bunch more who know diddley-squat but labor under the delusion that they know a lot more. Older adults do the same thing as well, but not to such a degree, and are (generally speaking) somewhat more open to compromise and consensus. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. I was referring to the real world.  Do a Google search for "tween" and you will see that it is in reference to children.  Either way, complain til your heart be content.
 * Interesting. In that case, I disagree with the definition -- 30 is too late a cut off. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Carryover from DRV
You seem to be bringing up the point that consensus does not mean the same thing as a majority, and you would be correct. You are also correct in citing guidelines and policy that state AfD debates (and indeed all debates) are not about counting votes, they are about consensus. I would not refute these statements in the least.

However, you must also realize that consensus does not mean unanimity. In practice it is very rare that a consensus debate ends with everyone finally settling on the same position. Were that the case, most AfD debates would continue indefinitely, as there tends to always be a few people who disagree with the majority opinion for one reason or another. It is policy that debates last 5 days minimum, but this can be moved out further if it is clear more consensus needs to develop on the matter - it is my impression you feel this is the case.

As you have cited WP:CON, I would like to call to your attention the section titled "Consensus in practice". Particularly note the line Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome, which is what happens more than often. Since you also bring up the topic of a supermajority, read further down the part titled "Consensus vs. supermajority" where AfD is specifically mentioned. While no one would assert that even supermajority need be a criterion for consensus, the guideline does tell us that a supermajority is indeed a primary indicator that one has a consensus on the matter, particularly if after debate the parties remain unreconciled on the matter.

What you must consider is, as you pointed out, a fundamental dichotomy on Wikipedia in terms of philosophy regarding "trivia articles". In the AfD it was demonstrated that some 80% of the people favored deletion, the remaining 20% arguing for inclusion, and at the conclusion of considerable debate on the topic, no significant change in people's opinions or recommendations had come to pass. In cases like that the administrators must make a judgement call and realize that unanimity will never be reached, and that no amount of discussion will result in everyone agreeing with the outcome. We do not always like the outcomes of these debates, but again, when it is clear that we are in an extreme minority on the subject, it behooves us to concede this fact, agree to abide by the decisions of the community, and thus a consensus is reached on the matter.

I do hope this clarifies the issue for you some, and I feel that when this DRV has run its course you will have ample evidence to support the notion that while unanimity was not reached, a sufficient consensus of the community was indeed found. Happy editing, A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, and I appreciate the attention you're giving this.
 * I'm aware of that part of WP:CON and, indeed, almost quoted it in my last DRV comment, but decided to truncate it for space. (I have a tendency towards verbosity.)  But while, as you rightly point out, "consensus" does not mean "unanamity", it also doesn't mean "majority rules," nor even "supermajority rules."  My feeling is that while unanimity is not required, what is required is an evaluation by the administrators of the quality of the arguments made instead of simply an evaluation of the numeric state of the "votes", no matter what quantitative standard is utilized.  My feeling is that even if all the comments were in favor of doing one thing, if one commenter made a strong and valid argument in favor of the other course, and that argument had a significant chance of being accepted by a sizable portion of the community, then the administrators really should give that argument the benefit of the doubt and rule that while the specific slice of the community that showed up to vote was in favor of one action, there was a good chance that the debate didn't accurately represent the consensus of the community, as opposed to the consensus of the people who commented.
 * I suppose this is my own fault, as I think I've been somewhat taken in by the claims made that Wikipedia operates on a community-consensual basis, when really, from what I can see, that isn't quite true at all. Instead while its official ideology is community-consensual, in practical action it runs on a supermajoritarian model based on the comments of statistical insignificant subgroups of the whole.  That's interesting too, I suppose, but not quite as intriguing as the community-consensual model.
 * At the very least, I have the answer to the question I kept asking inthe AfD debate, but to which I never received a reply: How is community consensus determined? It turns out that it really isn't, in my view. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is my own fault, as I think I've been somewhat taken in by the claims made that Wikipedia operates on a community-consensual basis, when really, from what I can see, that isn't quite true at all. Instead while its official ideology is community-consensual, in practical action it runs on a supermajoritarian model based on the comments of statistical insignificant subgroups of the whole.  That's interesting too, I suppose, but not quite as intriguing as the community-consensual model.
 * At the very least, I have the answer to the question I kept asking inthe AfD debate, but to which I never received a reply: How is community consensus determined? It turns out that it really isn't, in my view. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I have the answer to the question I kept asking inthe AfD debate, but to which I never received a reply: How is community consensus determined? It turns out that it really isn't, in my view. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale
You haven't seen it yet?? I wasn't sure if you hadn't seen it, or if you were just addressing a concern for others that may not have seen it. If you get the time, you should really check it out.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maltese Falcon
Reckon we can make The Maltese Falcon a feature? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I must admit it was me who added most of the full content but I haven't had the time to go through and edit and reference it yet -I should have done it at the time but I am hugely busy. -thanks a bunch for copy editing it -great. Yes with further copy editing and referencing sorting and removal of questionable sources it will be definately FA standard but not yet. Casino Royale which I know you did some good copy editing on I have nominated already for an FA and so far about 10 in support with many strong support ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - I didn't think of proposing it anywhere near so soon so you can relax. THe plot was way way!!! too long. Good luck anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Film/Novel "differences" sections
Where would be a proper venue to discuss this? I'd like to debate this further, as I'm planning guidelines for both future and current films. You certainly seem to have a well-developed perspective opposite mine, so I'd like to hear your points. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page of User:Erik/Film article guidelines might be appropriate. However, I'd like to save the discussion for another time, as I've been occupied with a business case for all of today and yesterday.  My energy level is rather depleted, so we'll have to do this another time. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates
Why did you move the tags on Incest to the bottom? I've always seen tags on top of other articles, and as far as I know, that's where they're supposed to be. Reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 10:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
Consensus is pretty clear by now that spoiler tags are redundant in almost all plot / synopsis sections and in al works of classic fiction. Please stop reinserting them in articles like Maltese Falcon, this is disruptive and may result in your being blocked form editing. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just adding my bit here, Ed. You're edit warring with multiple editors on several different Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to:


 * That degree of edit warring is counter-productive and constitutes disruption. If you continue you may be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. You usurp community consensus, I restore the status quo, you revert, and *I'm* the one who's edit warring?  Let's take a look at who began the cycle, shall we?  All I'm trying to do is to leave the articles as they were until some decision is reached, you're trying to change then in a way that is not currently supported by accepted policy.  But thanks for the "warnings", I appreciate it.  My feeling is this, if I am blocked for doing the right thing, then Wikipedia isn't really worth expending any energy on, and I look forward to its ultimate demise -- but why not get another three or four people to drop by and "warn" me some more, there's nothing like piling on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's have a reality check, shall we? On The Maltese Falcon (1941 film),  you have reverted two separate editors, on The Godfather, three, on The Maltese Falcon, four, on The Godfather Part II, five, and on The Red Shoes (film), six.  See the pattern?  All the time you have accused others of "usurping community consensus", and even vandalism.


 * This is why you're being warned. It's just a message to say "You're not doing the right thing. Stop disrupting Wikipedia." --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, now I understand. If one person does it, it's individual action.  But if *five* or *six* do it, it's an indication of consensus.  Got it.  Interesting -- and nicely arranged as well, congrats. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to know that the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler is still ongoing. It seems likely that it will end up on Arbitration. Any input you could give would be welcome.-- Nydas (Talk) 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Template relocations
I noticed that you have been relocating templates to the bottom of the page in several articles (Galaxy Quest, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Hiroshima). I wanted to inform you, without rehashing our previous discussion on this issue, that I have moved the templates back to their original place in the previously mentioned articles. If you take a look at Template messages/Disputes, it states exactly where numerous templates belong on an article, whether it be "For placement at top of article only," "For placement at top of article or section," or "For placement in or at top of a section only." Notice how none of these include the bottom of the article, where it is likely to be superfluous and overlooked. Please consider this next time you wish to move a template from its proper spot. Thanks, and take care, María ( habla con migo ) 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments about your user page
Dear Sir:

I came to your userpage by accident when I opened the history page of the Vatican City article. I agree with a lot of your observations about the annoying "consensus" in Wikipedia. I just cannot help but salute you on your rationality and commonsense. I just wish there were more contributors like you. I do not subscibe to the NPOV that most people keep pushing as it is totally irrational in a sense to apply it to the humanities and religion - NPOV is possible only in the sciences, I believe. A lot of articles in Wikipedia are "wolf-pack" articles and not real consensus nor objective/academically acceptable articles based on your observations and mine. Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere and their existence has some value. I also agree with your observations and recommendations about administrator abuses which I hope can be corrected.

Respectfully, Dr mindbender 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Move of dispute tag
Hello. I noticed that you moved a dispute tag to the bottom of an article:. I have not seen this done often and was wondering if you were following some specific formatting guide. Generally I like to see the nag tags right away at the top of the article if they pertain to a significant dispute regarding the article, which this tag does. Can you help me understand your thinking on this change? Buddhipriya 08:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed this. Ed Fitzgerald, I've attempted to discuss this with you in the past, and I still believe you are going against practiced Wikipedia procedure without adequate knowledge of the accepted purpose and place of these templates.  I can understand if you do not feel comfortable discussing this subject with me, so if you would rather I ask an administrator's opinion, or open an RfC, just say so.  I am concerned about your alterations of articles based solely on personal tastes.  María ( críticame ) 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is undergoing an epidemic of tagging. Subjectively, about half the articles I access (as a reader) have been tagged.  While the tags are useful from the point of view of drawing attention to other editors for the needs of the article (in the opinion of the tagger, of course, so tags are, essentially, a device for legally expressing a POV -- and many tags are excessively POV at that), they are, however, detrimental to users of the encyclopedia, who are supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists.  The tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material.


 * The proper place for the vast majority of tags should be, in my opinion, the talk pages of the articles in question, but people seem vehemently opposed to this (I can't see why -- it seems to me to be precisely one of the functions the talk page was designed for - exchanging ideas between editors about editing that readers aren't necessarily interested in). In the face of this opposition, I was moving tags to the bottom of articles, but this has the obvious drawback that they will not be seen if the article isn't read through.  The solution is to put a pointer at the top of the article, alerting those interested to consult the bottom of the page to see what tags have been applied.  This serve both purposes, but doesn't unduly disfigure the page, nor stop readers from delving into the material.  Probably, in the best of all possible world, if tags can't be moved to the talk page, they would be in a "tag" section at the end of the article.


 * As for what action you should take, you are, of course, free to take whatever action you deem appropriate -- restore the previous state of the articles I've made this change on, talk to adminstrators, open an "RfC", or do nothing and live with it for a while and see if it doesn't make sense. As for me, I don't plan to enter into extensive debate about this, here or elsewhere.  I'll be glad to repeat this explanation wherever I'm called upon to do it, but I've learned through harsh experience that debate on Wikipedia is next to useless for changing minds.


 * I don't plan to mount any kind of concerted campaign, such as was undetaken when a few editors decided arbitraily that spoiler warnings should no longer be used, and single-mindedly sought out any article with a spoiler warning and deleted it, then repeatedly undid every attempt to restore the status quo while debate was still ongoing, and used pressure from ideologically-inclined administrators threatening official action to intimidate their opposition. I'm simply doing this when I come across articles, in my normal course of using Wikipedia, that seem to need it, and if someone overrules me -- well, fine.  If I get back to that article at some time in the future, I'll deal with it then. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may disagree with the removal of the spoiler tags, but the change of policy regarding the issue is a prime example of how collective attitudes are capable of change on Wikipedia. Rather than taking it upon yourself to make a mass alteration to a widely accepted style guideline, you should instead consider broaching the subject on an appropriate talk page.  I can see from your contributions list that several of your changes have been reverted recently, and rightfully so; your changes go against Wikipedia style guideline, and personal opinions and/or beliefs should not be put before them.  "In my opinion" and "I believe" is not enough here and it goes against Consensus.  You can attempt to change the consensus through the proper channels, or you can follow it.  I strongly urge you not to attempt to change it by slowly and methodically altering articles without discussing it anywhere first.  Some may not object to you, but others will be all too willing to merely revert you.  Please respect the way we do things around here.  María ( críticame ) 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your characterization of the spoiler tag incident is mistaken. Thank you for your advice.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've listed this subject at WP:AN/I. María ( críticame ) 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. I don't generally like to throw around Wikipedia policy, since my experience is (1) that people generally read policy to say whatever they want it to say, without much regard to what's actually in it (cf. the general misuse of WP:AVTRIV to mean that trivia sections are not allowed), and (2) as Wikipedia policies proliferate, and because as a body they're contradictory and lack coherence, it's not difficult to shop around for a policy that suits the action you want to take (as opposed to taking an action the rises from and is necessitated by the demands of a coherent body of rules), but since you have drawn attention to this dialogue, and I assume people will be looking at it, I will cite both WP:BB and WP:IAR, fully understanding that the latter is (most probably) the last refuge of the scoundrel. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing more (and I really hope it is!), to appreciate the main point I'm making, which is that the proliferation and placement of tags are disruptive to the ease of ease of Wikipedia, I think one has to make something of an effort to see Wikipedia as someone who uses it primarily as a reference resource does, the kind of person who doesn't get involved in editing, or at most a little light copyediting or fact correction, but hasn't subsumed their lives in the minutia of editing and administering the project. People such as that want to be able to call up an article and look up what they need to know, without a lot of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo getting in their way, and to open an article and immediately be subjected to banners proclaiming "this isn't accurate", "this needs sourcing", "this isn't global enough", "this is disputed" and so on doesn't help them to do that.  It's the sort of thing that academics like to argue about, and that editors might want to know, but which are, for the most part, almost totally irrelevant to the casual user.


 * An article that is so egregiously bad that a warning has to be given to the user to (basically) ignore it, or to read it at their own risk, should be deleted rather than displayed with a lot of warning signs on it, and other than that extreme case, there is little reason to bother the user with clean-up tags, since they are not definitive and may represent only the opinion of a single editor.


 * The proliferation of tags is a crisis, although it is not at this time recognized as such. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Count me as one who most assuredly does not recognize the "crisis". Tags stay at the top - it is important for those who use Wikipedia to be informed if there are possible issues with an article before they invest time in reading it. Credibility is much more likely to warrant the term "crisis" than proliferation of tags, and your edits are distinctly counter to assisting with Wikipedia's credibility. Tucking the tags away at the bottom with a vague and non-informational notice in tiny font is not an improvement to the article; it is obfuscation. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be the case if there was a process in place to control the use of tags, and make them subject to consensus, or at the very least oversight, but there is no such thing. Tags are supposed to be discussed on the talk pages, but, in point of fact, the vast majority of tags are placed and never receive even a mention on the talk page, let alone a consensus-reaching debate. What that means is that tags don't generally represent a definitive statement of a problem with an article, they merely represent the opinion of an editor or editors that there is a problem.  And once they're placed, they're not even subject to the give and take of ordinary editing, because of the obvious taboo against removing them, so they stick around, even though they're merely an allegation of a problem, not the result of an investigation or community debate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'd be happier if tags were regulated and controlled and their proliferation was halted, but I see no chance of effecting that change. What I'm doing in the meantime is not removing them, but merely trying to accomodate the needs of article ease of use with their existence by moving them, and directing people to them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ease of use does not trump informing the reader. I cannot find words to express how bad I consider your suggestion we become yet more bureaucratic. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, except for factuality of content (which, I might point out, is not the same thing as having no point of view), ease of use should trump everything.


 * As for your comment about bureaucracy, it misses the point entirely. Here's the point: There are way too many tags.  If you don't want a process to control and regulate tags, then the next best solution is to eliminate them altogether.  They don't serve the purpose you seem to want them to serve (because they're not definitive and uncontrolled), and you don't want them to be placed where they'll do the most good, where editors will read them (preferably on the talk page, but, failing that, at the end of the article), and that makes them merely intrusive and relatively useless.


 * I think this is my last comment on the subject, as I'm beginning to repeat myself. I'll weigh in if anyone has anything new, interesting, perceptive or pertinent to say. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) First, a comment: please use Wikimarkup for bold and italic, not HTML tags. Bold is ' before and after text, and italics is . You can also use the easy editing buttons which you see at the top of your edit window - simply highlight the text, then click the appropriate button for Bold, Italic, Internal Link, External link, and so on.

A quote from Jimmy Wales: 'Writing things that are true is possible, but it is an arduous task requiring great mental focus,' he says. 'It's what we aim for, but when people say, "Should we trust Wikipedia?" my response is, well, we are incredibly upfront about where you should not trust it. There are lots of flags that we as a community put up to say: tread carefully here. "Warning, this section does not cite its sources!"' KillerChihuahua?!? 09:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * please use Wikimarkup for bold and italic, not HTML tags. Why? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good coding practice - this site uses MediaWiki software, which will continue to support wikimarkup as outlined in How to edit a page, but there is no guarantee of reverse compatibility should the elements you are using be deprecated, as has happened with other tags and markups already, and continues to happen with upgrades of MediaWiki. It ensures consistency of results and presentation across platforms and across versions. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me extremely unlikely, given the universe that WikiMedia projects exist in (i.e. the HTML-based Web), that HTML coding will be deprecated from the WikiMedia compilers -- quite the opposite, actually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, if your method is going to be used, it has to be a template, and it has to be wikimarkup. There's no use fighting those two points. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The methodology of solving the problem doesn't really concern me, this was just something I knew how to do. I'm about to look at the template you suggested below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag placement
If you wish to guage whether there is any community support for your one-man campaign to change accepted practice on tag placement, I suggest the Village Pump - Village pump (proposals) is probably the best place. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's certainly one way to go about it, but my experience of Wikipedia is that it's a very open system, and there are generally multiple ways to go about instituting change. Despite my long-windedness (or perhaps because of it) I'm generally not a fan of palaver as a means to get something done, so the methodology I've chosen is to institute this change on a small number of articles -- those which I come across in my everyday use of Wikipedia as a user -- to give people a fair chance of seeing it in context and evaluating whether they like it or not.  My hope is that it might catch on and others might begin to use it.  Probably that's a naive hope, but there you are.


 * Actually, there you are, following me around and reverting my efforts, thus preventing them from being getting a fair evaluation by unprejudiced editors who come across the change in context. I ask that you please stop doing this, especially as a complaint has been filed (WP:AN/I) and my initiative is already under discussion there.  Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, could you use a template like Taginfo instead? Please move the template to a new name if you think it needs it, and update it as you see fit.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU! That is really excellent!  I believe I will replace my HTML pointer with your template immediately. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The template will need work. If you want your solution to be successful, I recommend you take it slow, and only use this on a small number of pages.  If you keep tagging nonstop, you will eventually be stopped by someone or something along the way.  I suggest you get with editors like User talk:Rich Farmbrough who have expressed support for similar solutions and work with María to find a solution she finds acceptable; I can't stress this enough.  María's opposition can be seen as an opportunity for finding a solution that does work. I've worked with María before and I respect her opinion. I think she has a legitimate complaint, although I find myself agreeing with you for other reasons.  The tag situation is out of control, and something needs to be done.  I support a limited test run of your solution Ed, but I wouldn't keep tagging without more input from the community. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that advice, which I find very useful. What I'd like to do at this point is simply to replace those pointers I've already put in place with your template, so that if more work is done on the template it will be reflected in those articles as well.  Just to be clear, I haven't been seeking out tagged articles at all, they simply fall into my lap because of the epidemic, and those that I've altered have simply been articles that I have run across in my regular, ordinary use of Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to give you an idea of the limited scope of what I've been doing, I just went to all the articles I've altered and changed the HTML pointer to the "taginfo" template by hand, and it took me all of a half-hour. By count, in the 6 10 weeks since I did my first (April 27th), I've altered 45 articles in this way.  That's an average of just a shade over less than one a day, so I'm hardly going off half-cocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll note that the template in question has been tagged for deletion on the grounds that it violates WP:SELF. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. See WP:ASR.  Please note, the account was created only to make the TfD nom, strongly suggesting someone (probably an established editor) is trolling for a reaction. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! I hadn't gotten that far. Do you have suggestions about what I should do about it?  I've placed a comment in the TfD -- do I now have to live with the "tagged for deletion" disfiguring the template (whose entire purpose is to avoid disfiguring the tops of articles)? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing you might want to do is vote keep and use the link above showing why the nom's rationale for deletion is invalid. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And Ed, I strongly suggest you impose a moratorium on further tagging. This will show good faith on your part, and will allow you to survey reactions across the board and focus on constructive criticism for improving your idea.  Your strongest critics could quite conceivably help you to successfully implement this change if you only view their opposition from another POV.  Address their doubts and you will find people supporting you in droves. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have no problem doing that, as long as things are moving forward in some reasonable manner. As I said above, this wasn't a massive project, more of a haphazard one, and days would sometimes go by without my taking any action about it.


 * I do confess, however, that I'm somewhat as a loss for how to open common ground here. I respect their stance in that it calls for adherence to standards, which I think are important, but I'm frustrated with the difficulty of getting someone to look at something with fresh eyes and see the advantages that might be there, instead of immediately locking up, and I really don't know how to encourage that kind of openness.  I've made a number of arguments, cogently, I hope, and (for the most part) civily, but I don't get the sense that its getting through to people who objected to my actions.  Under those circumstances, how do I reach out and find out where our interests overlap?  I admit to not knowing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, contact Rich. Second, contact María and try to find some common ground. She probably doesn't see the problem that you do, but if she did, chances are she would partially support some of your ideas. Third, make a list of all the objections to your idea and answer them briefly on a subpage in your userspace.  And please remember, super-intelligent robots are not yet in charge.  We have real, flawed humans running the show, and as such, they tend to be stubborn and resistant to change: that's human nature. Those of us who actively experiment with new ideas in the hope that we can improve the encyclopedia are in a very small minority. That's the nature of the beast. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle ground
I'm not sure to which point you're referring. María ( críticame ) 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any reasonable compromise. I greatly disagree with your attempts at a one man mission, and if you can cease relocating templates and were to take your concerns to an appropriate outlet, then perhaps others will be more willing to enter into discourse on this subject.  María ( críticame ) 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have previously commented at Template talk:Cleanup, which would have been my first suggestion, but you may also wish to try Village pump (proposals), as KillerChihuahua suggested to you previously. I respect Viriditas' opinion, and he seems to have given you a few pointers, as well.  I'm glad you're looking to argue your points (some of them which are valid, I must admit) before continuing with your changes. María ( críticame ) 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support for your feelings about tags
Ed, I agree with you nearly 100% on the tag plague. I was first set to thinking about this when I read an essay by User: Shanes over 10 months ago. As you can see from his talk page, you are not alone in your feelings.

I have run across a couple of thoughtful souls on the other side of this issue, but in the eyes of the majority of tag defenders, if Thomas Jefferson was alive today he'd declare that the placement of tags at the top of articles was the fourth uninalienable right. They are so wrapped up in their egos as "editors" that they don't think about the reader who comes here looking for information that really doesn't give a hoot that this article needs to be cleaned up, or is "semi-protected".

I think that those who think as we do need to keep in touch, gently proselytize (I chose that verb specifically for you, the self-proclaimed atheist) others, nudge a few tags to the bottom to show that the wiki-world won't fall apart, gauge our numbers, and when we realize that we have a large number of thinking, rationale people with us, bring the issue to a head. I don't mean a coup d'etat, like those two did with the spoiler tag issue [though I agreed with their feelings about the issue, I am absolutely amazed both that they had the chutzpah to do what they did and that they actually got away with it], I mean for us to simply win the argument and carry the day. Hey, it may never happen. But I've been working on it for months, and I know that a few editors have been persuaded.

Anyway, just wanted you to know that you are not alone, not by a long shot. Unschool 08:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Pubic ramus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.134.43.237 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Compact of Free Association
Thanks for your contribution, but it wasn't quite accurate. (I guess my edit had room for improvement.) The reality is that it's not "domestic mail" anymore, but rates won't reach international level for 3 more years. In January 2006, first ounce jumped to $0.48 (1/5 of the way from $0.39 to $0.84), and now it's $0.61 (2/5 of the way from $0.41 to $0.90). The rates (and services) are classified as international, and therefore it's "international phased in" and not "domestic phased out". Feel free to edit if there's an even better way to explain it without getting into too much details for this article. HkCaGu 07:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Year 2000 problem

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from . Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.   —EncMstr 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  —EncMstr 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Help requested
Ed, when you get a chance, can you check out User_talk:Kevinalewis? I would really like to solve this problem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Brown
I had always understood the name, at least, to be connected to Peanuts, although the character's antics didn't quite match. This article which probably wouldn't be accepted as a source, nonetheless claims there is no connection. Be aware that the wiki article about the Peanuts character also makes the connection to the song, so it needs to be fixed in both places. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. The song was written by Lieber and Stoller in 1959, well before Peanuts reached its zenith of popularity and cultural spread.  As you say, the characters don't really match up.  "Charley Brown" in the song is an urban high-school cut-up, more in the tradition of "Yakkity-Yak".  The connection to the comic strip is probably entirely coincidental, unless L&S lifted the name from there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Broadway theatre
Hello,

I left you a question at Talk:Broadway theatre, regarding your unexplained reversion of my edits.

Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSS YOUR EDITS FIRST!!!
You are making controversial edits to the attack on Pearl Harbor page. People are disagreeing with you and you should talk first or your edits will be removed and your blocked from editing according to three edit rule. 168.253.16.236 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course! I always obey the rudely capitalized demands of anonymous editors!  Yowzah, boss. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

HEY I WILL REPORT AND CAN BLOCK YOUR EDIT IF YOU DON'T DISCUSS YOUR EDIT ON PEARL HARBOR. THAT IS NOT A JOKE. I WILL TAKE YOU DOWN. YOU DISCUSS THAT IN THE TALK PAGE. NOW. OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED AND BLOCKED. I CAN DO THAT. DISCUSS FIRST. PEOPLE ARE DISAGREEING WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR CHANGE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS YOUR FIRST WARNING!!!!168.253.20.118 (talk) Welcome! —Preceding threat was added at 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick: Reverts to my edits: Why?
Hi User:Ed Fitzgerald. I recently Wikified a few items in Philip K. Dick (no change to content), added a commented note on an apparent problem with the reference to KSMO Radio, and added two "fact" tags (requests for cites). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_K._Dick&oldid=177757092 - You reverted these edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_K._Dick&oldid=177822260 Why? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paging Ed Fitzgerald --
 * I don't think I'm being a jerk about this - can you give me a response? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The facts you questioned are well known to anyone who's familiar with the basic facts of Dick's life. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Irvington, NY as Orthodox Community
I see you are quite persistent with editing the Irvington, NY page, removing the label "Orthodox Jewish Community." Let me take a wild guess, you are not an Orthodox Jew. You're most likely not even Jewish. If you are, I can see why the Jewish community is persecuted. If you're not, then thank G-d! As an Orthodox Jew myself, and as a resident of Irvington, New York, I can say that there has been a rather significant, and noticeable influx of Orthodox Jews into the Rivertowns. Why are Orthodox Jews coming to Irvington? First off, it is very close to the Chabad of the Rivertowns, located a little over a mile away in Dobbs Ferry. Now, Dobbs Ferry is not as nice as Irvington, which is more community-oriented and neighborhoody. I myself know of at least 20 Orthodox Jewish families living in Irvington. Each family has an average of 5 people per unit. That's at least 100 Orthodox Jews--- that I know of! Irvington's population is, as you should know- since you check this page apparently every five minutes (GET A LIFE!), not large. However, it has a significant Jewish population. Let's say, and this is an underestimate, 1500. 100 of those Jews are Orthodox--- at least! That is not an Orthodox Jewish community? Maybe for places like Brooklyn, who have over a quarter million Jews, a large number of Jews is considered a "community." But for Irvington, we have our own "community" in this small town. Hopefully we'll establish some kosher stores--- we're planning a small Kosher deli. But we do not need to do that to prove that we are here, we are a community, and we are proud of it. For G-d's sake, stop editing the page. It's helpful for other Jews to know that Irvington's Orthodox community is expanding. If you're against it, then you are using wikipedia to advance some kind of anti-semitic agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.130.133 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was born in Tarrytown (Phelps), and grew up and went to school in Irvington. My family still lives there.  While there may be a growing Orthodox Jewish population in Irvington, Irvington, as a whole, is not an "Orthodox Jewish Community."  Please stop in adding it as a category, which has no basis in fact. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. What gave you a clue that "Ed Fitzgerald" isn't an orthodox Jewish name?

Here's the definitive proof, according to the leading Jewish synagogue directory online: Irvington NY has two Orthodox shteibls, which are close-knit synagogues that are strictly traditional. I attend services at Chabad, and forgot to mention the existence of these two synagogues, although this information is public and should have been considered a while ago. They are: Der Yiddisher Shul / Irvington Synagogue and Ohel Torah v'et Tzion HaAdamah. here's the "definitive proof" link- http://maven.co.il/synagogues/C3329Y42022RX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.130.133 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, this discussion should be taking place on the discussion page at "Irvington, NY", not here. Please put any further comments there.  Second, please sign your comments -- use four tildes (~) to automatically generate your name and date.  Third, and most important, your "definitive proof" is anything but.  It once again goes to show that there is an Orthodox Jewish community within Irvington, not that Irvington itself is an Orthodox Jewish community. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck? Is Brooklyn considered an Orthodox Jewish community? Of course. Is Brooklyn ENTIRELY JEWISH? Of course not. But is there an Orthodox Jewish community WITHIN Brooklyn? Of course. The same can be said for Scarsdale NY, Merrick NY, Los Angeles, even Jerusalem! All these cities feature large Orthodox Jewish communities, but the cities themselves are not exclusively Orthodox. The Orthodox communities are thus WITHIN these cities. All "Communities" are part of a large community, the city itself. Up until your last comment, you seemed to be an anti-semitic bastard who had no basis for deleting the Orthodox label. Now you're a dumb anti-semitic bastard, as I have not in my entire life heard anything as stupid as your last statement. If people like you are proof reading and "fact"-checking Wikipedia, this site is in serious trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.33.89 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please put your comments where they belong, on the "Irvington, NY" talk page. I will transfer your comment there, and no longer respond to them here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam Spade: reverts to my edits--why?
I just noticed that you reverted much of my edits to the Films list in Sam Spade. I suppose it is arguable as to whether the fact that Elisha Cook, Jr. and Lee Patrick recreate their characters from the 1941 classic in 1975's The Black Bird needs to be pointed out there, but that Satan Met a Lady is a remake in disguise of Falcon certainly needs to be; the fact that you change "a character based on Sam Spade" to "the Sam Spade character" indicates that you are aware of the nature of the movie. So I ask, why? Ted Watson (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about Sam Spade, so the stuff about Patrick and Cook is not appropriate there -- it should go in the article about that film. Your point about "Satan" is a good one -- I'll make the change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick
Hi, Ed. You removed the "refimprove" tag from PKD, which it clearly needs. Also, please get in the habit of providing edit summaries; it helps those of us who use watchlists. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not think the tag was justified, so I removed it. (Nice job on the workover you did on the article, incidentally.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you and I have a lot of work to do to get the article up to GA or FA standards. Take a look at this link to see why the refimprove tag is appropriate.  Granted, I am not a huge fan of tags, but in this case, I think we need one.  I'll leave it to you to choose which one. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...
Hello. I'm not exactly sure why you would want to put back up that clutter of external links back up at J. G. Ballard‎, especially since about half of them were repeats of the same websites and were promotional to boot. They should all be listed at the DMOZ which template I left in place. Also, why would you want to unalphabetize the categories? Having them alphabetical helps to keep people from adding categories that are already there. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting edit summary. Anyways, I thought you might like to know that the website which you left two links up to, spammed us heavily tonight- see Special:Contributions/99.231.92.192. Cheers!&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Groovy! You plan to tell me what site it is, or do you prefer to make me guess? More authoritarian b.s.? Have a good one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohmigod! You're right!!! I followed your link and -- geez louise!!! -- this website dedicated to J.G. Ballard first editions, run by a guy who's on expert on J.G. Ballard, went and put a link on just about every single Wikipedia article about books by J.G. Ballard!!!  Holy crap! We're doomed!! Will such egregious spamming never cease???? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All sarcasm aside, I took another look at the site, and it still looks to me like a worthwhile one, and appropriate for a Ballard-related article, so I've undone your deletion of it - but I've also cleaned up the link description. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good then. I'm sure you know the subject better than I do since The Unlimited Dream Company was only on my watchlist because I had disambiguated its link to the River Thames. Thanks for your patience and happy editing! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)