Forum:Hypocritical Deletionism

From Illogicopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This was originally a talk page note to Nerd42, but seeing as it involves site policy, I thought it should involve the Admins as a whole.

Uncyclopedia took (and continues to take) a lot of flack for it's deletionism and for its oligarchy. It was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that the appearance of sites like this was intended to remedy that -- providing both a more relaxed content quality standard as well a mandate to preserve all but the most unworthy content -- graphic, profane, explicit or abusive material. Even the vandalism is being saved here, via the Nose collection.

However, at least with Nerd's personal management of the Christian content of this site, I don't find it better than the Uncyclopedia admins. In fact, given the treatment of religion on Uncyc, it's more dogmatic.

The article Christianity (now a redirect) in no way breached Illogicopedia:Policy. In fact it met the criteria perfectly, being both clean and allowably non-politically correct: free of graphic, profane, explicit or abusive content.

But this was what Nerd wrote:

Policy violation: I think this is anti-Christian, taking a position that Chritsianity is violent and "about god getting killed" .... I don't think this is what we're looking for.

This is also not the first time it's been deleted.

While it may offend some people's personal moral sensibility, that does not give them the right to override the stated principles and smite whatever they want. If you want to rewrite policy, do so, but do it with the consensus.

In any event, I'd like a ruling on this. Restore the article, or narrow the policy.

If the latter, do consider editing Jews to remove the notion that they are nearly as cheap to buy as pogs, that they are available for sale on the black market, and that they are not kosher to eat even though they are a "tasty delicacy" to enjoy during Passover. If the aim is to be PC, this content doesn't demonstrate a lot of holocaust sensitivity.

--The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 16:01, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Jews is being persuasive at all. It's neither anti-Semitic nor pro-Zionist. Your analogy doesn't work. I'm not opposed to the "Christianity" article on the basis that it is "offensive" - merely that it is attempting to be "persuasive" - to get people to accept one perfectly serious controversial view of Christianity over another perfectly serious controversial one. That's not what we're here for. --Nerd42 20:55, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
You'd be hard pressed to find many who would agree that Christianity was a persuasive article. It is about as a ridiculous example of satire as there is, and neatly compact with no additives that might mislead people to believe it was serious. And I didn't say that the Jews article was persuasive; only that it is no less offensive to the group that it parodies. I can discuss in detail, how each of the elements I mentioned above might offend someone who's experienced genocide, even second hand, but there isn't a need. Is there? --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 22:14, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I've resurrected the original Christianity page. It's an abuse of admin powers to spontaneously delete an article because it personally offends you. Nerd42 should have consulted the community before killin' the page. --THE 17:13, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
I am not personally offended. In fact, the argument that the article makes is not offensive if meant seriously. The problem is that it's making a real argument in the first place. --Nerd42 20:52, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
I think this is baseless, as I stated above. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 22:14, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, THE. To just expand on what Nerd42 says above: I think it's unfair to say that the article portrays Christianity as violent. What it does do is make some parodist observations about:
- Christianity being focused on the sacrifice of Jesus, as opposed to Judaism or Islam which are very God focused.
- Our fear of hell
- Catholic guilt
And the second part of the article is just loopy Christan Slater stuff. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 18:18, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
The position that other religions are "God-focused" and Christianity isn't is extremely controversial. Illogicopedia is not supposed to be here to persuade people to believe or not believe things. --Nerd42 20:51, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
You're completely misconstruing the point, as you did with the original article. The religion is Christianity, as in Christ -- not Godianity, Allahianity, or Yawehianity. The rallying point for Christians was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to forgive the sins of the world. As Jesus was, as the Christians believe, the son of God, my point does not imply it to be Godless. On the other hand, Judaism and Islam have a completely different role for Jesus. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 22:14, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

My rationale for deleting this article[edit]

OK another admin doesn't think my deletion of this article is appropriate. Very well, let's talk about it. All my comments refer to this revision which I deleted, and was restored by our newest admin, User:THE. I'm not angry or anything, I just think this article should be deleted.

I did not delete the article because I am personally offended.

The article defines Christianity as:

"A religion of love that is based upon the brutal murder of God by his creations, and God's subsequent retaliation in condemning recalcitrant creations to eternal torture by non-oxidizing fire. The more devout a follower of Christianity, the more worried he is you may be enjoying yourself."

I would like to make the following assertions:

  1. This is the main theme/subject of the article. I am not pulling the above quote out of context.
  2. This position is not true, which in itself does not merit deletion, but is relevant.
  3. This is a definite articulate controversial ideological position, which is only "nonsense" if you hold a particular view. Some people would argue that the above position accurately describes Christianity. Some would call it libel. Only if you hold a specific view on religious matters is this "nonsense".
  4. Some people seriously believe this. I have talked to them myself. I would argue they are wrong. In fact, over the past few years I've been working on writing a book that deals (in part) with exactly this subject. (I would suggest C. S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" to anyone who is interested) I don't want to start an edit war or Uncyclopedia-style "constructive flamewar" of pro-Christian editors vs anti-Christian editors - I wanted to avoid that whole mess by simply prohibiting persuasiveness. I am perfectly capable of arguing back, but I'd much rather not even need to argue back by making this web site be an "argument-free zone".
  5. The mere fact that I am now arguing with / debating it in factual terms shows it's articulate and is attempting to be persuasive.

Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted under the "We are not persuasive" rule in Illogicopedia:Commandments. It belongs somewhere else, probably at UnBible.

In contrast[edit]

I uploaded an old version of "Christians" today to show what I think an acceptable article dealing with Christianity could be like. Unlike this article, I don't think "Christians" is either specifically pro-Christian or anti-Christian, but is just nonsensical crazyness.

The inverse[edit]

Seems to me, I could just as easily start an article defining Christianity as, "The religion of hatred, torture and destruction that built all the hospitals and orphanages so starving lower-caste kids in India would have a chance to make something out of their lives instead of being treated like human rubbish all because of a stupid backwards religion called "Hinduism" that has set the Eastern world back several centuries at least."

I could go on to slander Muslims in a similar way and just go on for pages and pages. I could blame the Atheists for the evils of Communism in Russia. I could say all kinds of things that are on about the same level as this article in the opposite direction. But should I? No. Delete that crap - it belongs at political or religious parody wikis, not here.

If we were a humor wiki[edit]

If our main goal was humor value, I would not advocate having a "We are not persuasive" rule in the first place. Persuasive humor, as I said in my Open Letter to Uncyclopedia, "can be found from all different sides" of an issue.

But our main goal isn't humor value. It's non-serious fun nonsense, which I would definitely say does not describe persuasive articles.

Willingness to comply with community decisions, whatever they turn out to be[edit]

I would also like to say that I am willing to abide by whatever decision the community makes on this case. None of my actions are meant to be final, anything can be challenged and I don't/won't get mad or anything. --Nerd42 20:46, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

A response to the whole hog[edit]

Well, I found the Christianity article as a whole funny, personally. Everything after the first paragraph I would deem in line with the Illogicopedia ethic, thus worthy of its place. Though the first paragraph is quite clever (and made me raise something of a chuckle), you could term it as a bitter rant, which is not the kind of stuff we really wanna be allowing too much of. In other words, maybe it's a bit heavy for an illogical humour wiki such as Illogicopedia.

Very good point raised here about the commandments and such, Todd, but we ought to remember that mostly they are there as guidelines and each admin is going to interpret stuff slightly different from everyone else. As for the Jews article, I'm not a Jew and I really dunno if Jews would be mortally offended by being compared to pogs. In the end I suppose it's down to your individual viewpoint and how devout you are in your belief. I see TKF originally wrote that article, and his stuff is traditionally slightly nearer-the-knuckle than your typical cookie-cut Illogicopedian. Also, I'm sure if Nerd knew of the Jews article he would have raised the point by now.

The correct action regarding Christianity, I believe, would be to simply delete/rewrite/dumb down the offending paragraph and leave it be.

BTW, I quite enjoyed the Christians article too. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 21:09, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

OK, that'd probably work. Though I didn't think there was much there worth saving. I didn't merely delete Christianity, I made it be a redirect to Christians. --Nerd42 21:12, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
And can we please fix the stupid censorbot that spells ASSERTIONS as "rectumertions"?? Before long people are gonna start blaming me for that and I had nothing to do with it! ... I'd feel really embarrassed if it turned out my AdBlockPlus was doing it. --Nerd42 21:15, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Fixed now, for the most part. It was getting on my wick a bit too. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 17:08, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Stop using brainy words! also, the best way to fix it is with a space. so it looks for the end of the word as well, since the code looks for the front of the word, but not the end.--Silent Penguin 18:58, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)


OK what about Xtianity ?? It's even more "biting" --Nerd42 21:16, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Religion jokes are not my forte, but I like the satire myself. There are a few explicit bits in there that could do with editing, IMO, but again it comes down to offending people. And yes, there are one or two things that may offend.
Sod it, I'm gonna come out and say it: these Uncyc ports are becoming harder to police. I'm all for inclusionism and that but I'd prefer Illogicopedia to have a bit more original content made for the wiki itself. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 21:26, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
More original bits will only come with increased usership, and retention. Both of these will only occur if the environment here offers something that the competition doesn't have. So let's keep easing back on the delete button, unless it's clear hatespeech. And, if it needs to be said, checking the edit history to see who's written/posted what you're about to kill is a nice gesture. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 22:31, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind that people are taking the time to find unwanted Uncyclopedian content for Illogico, but remember that commandment that we are not Uncyclopedia's trash bin. At least, I think that's written somewhere in there. Whooo, listen to me, citing policy! I'm gonna be a Wikipedian before I know it. :) -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 17:11, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical debate for balance - Wikia Terms and Conditions[edit]

The most biased article on the wiki, and should be deleted. Discuss. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 21:26, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. I laughed. A+A+A+A+A+ Would buy again. Besides, everyone -- even Wikia -- is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how misguided. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 22:26, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I wrote that article when I was highly cheesed off with Wikia and feared it may be deleted for having too much of an opinion. Reading back, it is obviously written by a man with an agenda. The point is, how is that any different from the perceived bias in the Christianity article? I mean, apart from the bit about bloody murder? Hm, maybe we're taking all this too seriously. I can't say I agree with all of Nerd's deletions but I respect his opinion. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 17:15, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Let's vote on it.[edit]


  • Should the Christianity article be deleted? I say NO because, although it's making a persuasive argument that's totally untrue, that's sort of the point of this website. There are plenty of other articles that put Christianity, or religion in general, in a negative light. Of my articles (just for example) Lightbulbism is one. Slugs. has serious discussion of whether or not God exists. The Black Box is a metaphor for crazy religious people killing each other. There are also many bogus "persuasive" articles on the site that argue for absurd things. But the minute you start deleting articles because you personally find the content offensive is the minute you stroll into dangerous waters. I think we should give people the most creative freedom possible. And that includes freedom to make bizarre jokes about Christianity. STRONG KEEP. --THE 23:09, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
To add one more thing to my above rant: Nerd42 says the problem with this article is that it's making an argument in the first place. I say that Sexual Innuendo in U.S. Currency is also making an argument. Should it be deleted? No. Because the argument it's making is absurd. The argument that Christianity is making is also absurd. --THE 23:14, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. :) --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 23:23, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

""That's sort of the point of this website!?!?!?!?!?" - this website isn't supposed to HAVE a point! I don't think you guys have actually read my rationale, since you're not responding to the points in it, but to your imagined idea that I think the article is offensive. It's not offensive - I disagree with the point it's making. Outside of Illogicopedia, I have definite philosophical and religious positions that I use persuasive writing to defend. That is serious business. I don't want that kind of stuff here, but if we're going to allow one side, then we're going to have to allow the other. --Nerd42 13:53, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

I meant "it's the point" as in it's our point to make silly, absurd statements. I made a longer response down below. and of course you disagree with the point the article is making. It's an ABSURD point. The fact that this article makes untrue statements and treats them as facts doesn't make it persuasive--EVERY ARTICLE ON OUR SITE makes untrue statements and treats them as facts, including your own Liberals. If the christianity article said "Christianity is a myth, don't believe a word of it!!!" or "Christianity is the answer to life's questions! Let the love of Jesus in to your heart!" then you'd have a point. As such, I only see another article full of silly, absurd statements, and I see no reason to delete it. --THE 15:25, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)


Other options?[edit]

SilentPenguin and I had a conversation on IRC yesterday, where he pointed out the concern that deletion of articles by an admin looks permanent to new users and is thus a bad thing, and that made me look at things from a different perspective. I think the solution here ought to be to find a way of doing things that balances that concern with my concern that the site's going to be used as a propaganda mill.

How about this - a template that says "This article is too argumentative. Instead of debating the issue, please help edit it to make it more nonsensical." or something of the like? That way, we could keep the fundamental "we are not persuasive" principle without needing to invoke the "delete" tab to do it. There could be an "Too argumentative" category of things that need to be nonsensified. --Nerd42 13:53, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

It ISN'T an argumentative article. I fail to understand what about the article you find "argumentative." I also heartily disagree with the idea of adding nonsense to perfectly funny articles just because they're too "persuasive." I think the "persuasive" category should be reserved for articles that are clearly arguing for a certain position (i.e. "conservatives are stupid," "liberals are stupid," or racist stuff). Three users have now said they have absolutely no problem with this article. I personally fail to see what's so persuasive about it. --THE 15:25, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
How about Pork is evil? It's "persuasive," but it's also hilarious, satirical, and a wonderful article. I think we should only apply the "don't be persuasive" rule to extreme cases (where the author is seriously trying to persuade the reader), not JOKE PERSUASIVE ARTICLES like pork is evil and christianity. If the article was saying that Christianity is a false, ignorant religion, it would be different. But that's not what the article is saying. It's saying a bunch of silly nonsense about Jesus in high school. Therefore it fits perfectly with illogicopedia's spirit of free-flowing weirdness and shouldn't be deleted, or, I think, tagged with anything. --THE 15:31, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Not really ... Pork is evil isn't trying to persuade people that either that pork actually is evil or it isn't. On the other hand, the stuff I'm complaining about can be put alongside Richard Dawkins saying “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (The God Delusion, Chapter 2, p. 31) and I don't really see much difference in principle. --Nerd42 16:18, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
As the sole author of that piece, I must disagree. It emphatically, repeatedly tries to make the point that pork is evil. Of course it fails miserably because it's satire. But that's the intent -- to warp and blur what we know is true with humourous excess. As with the Christianity piece, no reasonable person would buy into the article's premise. --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 17:41, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, I have met real people who do buy into the article's premise. --Nerd42 21:23, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, if the article proclaimed that christianity was a myth, you'd have a point. All I see in the Christianity article is some charming nonsense that you'd have to work hard to look for any persuasiveness in. I've read the article about six times now, and it wasn't until the last reading that I even noticed anything that could be vaguely construed as persuasive. And because it's just that--vague--and because three community members have already said the article doesn't bug them, I think it would be a bad idea to delete it. I say live and let live. You obviously disagree about Christians murdering god and being cannibals, just as you'd disagree about liberals really being jellyfish. It isn't persuasive, it's standard illogicopedia goofiness. --THE 16:27, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
What the heck, this isn't "charming". I think you're blinded either by ignorance or prejudice. --Nerd42 16:52, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
  • siiiigh* Please, please, please don't assume I'm ignorant or prejudiced. You don't know me. At all. We disagree on this article, clearly, but does that make either of us ignorant or prejudiced? No, it does not. I thought the "Christian Bale" part of the article especially was both funny and charming. I wasn't aware that that made me ignorant and prejudiced. --THE 19:55, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

the Irk convo[edit]

[21:19:02]	<SilentPenguin>	seems you have riled people
[21:19:22]	<SilentPenguin>	personally i think he is right
[21:19:38]	<Nerd42>	*shrug* did you read my expanded rationale?
[21:19:48]	<SilentPenguin>	any policy it does break, it is clearly flippant about, it isnt intending to be rasist
[21:19:51]	<SilentPenguin>	or whatever
[21:20:08]	<SilentPenguin>	you cant be funny without offending someone
[21:20:10]	<Nerd42>	its fine, if he and others disagree then we'll have to go with what the majority decides. I do think my points in Talk:Christianity are worth considering however.
[21:20:52]	<Nerd42>	this isn't about being "offensive"
[21:21:03]	<SilentPenguin>	useually we instigate votes insted of clearcut deletes unless it is spam or downright horrid
[21:21:07]	<Nerd42>	this is about trying to get people to believe something or not believe something contraversial.
[21:21:31]	<Nerd42>	yeah I thought it was downright horrid. if you guys wanna have a vote then OK
[21:22:14]	<SilentPenguin>	we were considering policy of using the {{QD}} template, admins can only delete {{QD}} articles (except blatent crap)
[21:22:33]	<SilentPenguin>	one admin or user instegates the template, another deletes
[21:23:06]	<Nerd42>	that would slow down alot of the crap. Anytime somebody deletes something, the user can protest on the talk page
[21:23:11]	<Nerd42>	I didn't lock Christianity from being created
[21:23:34]	<SilentPenguin>	but the point is, its to avoid things like this
[21:23:37]	<Nerd42>	if people object, it's just as easy to undelete stuff and then talk about it
[21:24:00]	<SilentPenguin>	but, it makes people feel the deletion is final
[21:24:12]	<Nerd42>	Hmm you may have a point there.
[21:24:20]	<Nerd42>	Didn't look at it from that point of view.
---nerd rambles alow!
[21:25:08]	<Nerd42>	Well the solution then must take both factors into account: the need to get rid of crap in a speedy/timeful manner and the need to help the users realize that a lone admin's decision is NOT final and they can protest it (calmly) without incurring anybody's wrath.
[21:26:06]	<Nerd42>	Another issue involved here is that people are starting to just dump stuff they didn't even write here from Uncyclopedia
[21:26:23]	<Nerd42>	I can understand dumping stuff you wrote that got deleted or that you just want to put here because.
[21:26:33]	<Nerd42>	But something you had nothing to do with, that you don't even like!?
[21:26:43]	<Nerd42>	that's just weird, and it's going on alot
[21:27:02]	<Nerd42>	i didn't think anyone would take to time to do that crap
[21:28:58]	<Nerd42>	Seems to me, I could just as easily start an article defining Christianity as, "The religion of hatred, torture and destruction that built all the hospitals and orphanages so starving lower-caste kids in India would have a chance to make something out of their lives instead of being treated like human rubbish all because of a stupid backwards religion that ..
[21:29:15]	<Nerd42>	and could go on for pages and pages like that
[21:29:19]	<Nerd42>	But should I?
[21:29:46]	<Nerd42>	(the stupid backwards religion being Hinduism)
[21:30:09]	<SilentPenguin>	i tire of that ip just flooding ?pedia with uncyc articles
[21:30:27]	<Nerd42>	That would seem to me to be about on the level that current [[Christianity]] is on. It's there to make a religious/political point, and not even really to entertain all that much when making it.
[21:30:40]	<Nerd42>	the jokes in it seem to be a mere pre-text.
[21:31:24]	<Nerd42>	send it to a politics or religious parody wiki. there are whole sites that have been created to do that kind of crap
[21:46:28]	<Nerd42>	OK well um do you see both sides of this?
[21:47:01]	<Nerd42>	hope you know that I try not to make decisions based on emotion or popularity
[21:47:27]	<Nerd42>	I am not the sort of person who gets "offended"
[22:05:25]	<Nerd42>	OK OK i'm done ... i keep thinking of more stuff to say

the jist:

  • Nerd is a tit for just deleting it
  • i tire of people moaning
  • that stupid IP with his uncyc articles, i'll wring his neck! Write something, ?pedia isnt an archive.
  • Hindles and I suggested a method of deleting articles involving two users to delete, admins can only delete {QD} articles, and cant place them themselves, excluding spamming.

Quit moaning, what's done is done, you spent 2 pages getting nowhere and turning this into a VFD page, lets have something definitive, some options, people choose.--Silent Penguin 19:10, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave then. I wish someone had said something earlier -- 19:20, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
Hahah, you're really cheesed off about this aren't you, Penguin? Still, nice to see that even the most nonsensical of sites can have proper debates and stuff. But yeah, that's, like, the gist of what's going on here. If Todd hadn't brought this whole thing up I guess nobody would have given a crap about the Christians article (or was it the Christianity one? Can't remember now). It's no biggie, in the grand scheme of things, but I suppose it has highlighted an important point... about what, I dunno :) And no, I CBA coming on IRC right now.
Nerd, just take a chill pill, man. I presume that's you there but you just forgot to log in. It isn't worth getting this worked up about. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 20:51, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

NOOOoooo... No, no no that "leaving" comment above was DEFINITELY not me. --Nerd42 21:18, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I wonder who it was then? -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 21:54, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
See SP's comment above: "that stupid IP with his uncyc articles, i'll wring his neck! Write something, ?pedia isnt an archive." Checking the IP who made the comment (one among several often-similar ones who together have imported tons), you'll see an Uncyc import in the contributions. So it is probably said anonymous user. --Fluffalizer 14:12, 7 Aym 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me there, I was a bit slow in realising it was the IP dude. Rest assured I did eventually. Sepp, ya scared him off! Still, the question now seems to be "what are we gonna do with all those imported Uncyc articles?" -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 20:22, 7 Aym 2009 (UTC)
It just drove me mad how it was all imported, i feel s/he should make some contributions that we can call our own :D lets give IotM to that user! for actually reading something that he wasn't importing :P but seriously, we have more than just articles, and its hard to keep track of people when they just edit as an ip, it makes them feel sorta like furniture. --Silent Penguin 22:44, 7 Aym 2009 (UTC)

The Options[edit]

Continue as normal[edit]

  • Here. We don't need more laws and policies and stuff. Fetch the nachos. -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 20:52, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, leave things alone for now --Nerd42 21:21, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)
  • 684 --THE 21:30, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

{QD} protection[edit]

something else? digest[edit]

Okay, soooo...[edit]

I just rewrote the article, thinking to myself, "Let's just get this over with and move on." Any objections, anyone? --THE 20:06, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm just a simple country folk, but uhh, yeah go with what THE said. I'll admit I skimmed over large parts of this, so ignore me. Yay web communism. --Testostereich(ballsack) 20:26, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of something better (the common era backwards nonsense) and we can keep the Christian Slater bits and yeah it's fine now. --Nerd42 21:20, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

It's basically the article, halved. So while I appreciate the honest effort... --The Bard of Illogicopedia TinyQuill.gif 21:22, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It's all over now, and we've learned two valuable lessons. Lesson number one: discuss first, delete second unless an article is CLEARLY garbage. That way, there won't be this sort of kontroversy in the future. Lesson number two: I dunno, something about...cottage cheese? Anyway, we're all friends again and the article is fine. Group hug! --THE 21:29, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Lesson number two: do not, under any circumstances, run out onto the main road at rush hour. Would you like a biscuit for your cheese? -- Hindleyak  Converse?blogClick here! 21:57, 5 Aym 2009 (UTC)