- List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)
This article was deleted with a borderline Delete consensus here after 8 editors unanimously agreed it should be kept in this previous AfD. I think this meets speedy keep condition 2-iv: "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Technically the 2nd nominator did add an additional other stuff exists point, but I think that was more of a contextualization than a deletion argument. I'm not saying we should ignore the new AfD (keeping in mind that consensus can change), but since the first AfD had a more clear outcome than the second and there were no substantial changes in between (other than the voters involved), I think we should at least give the article a chance at being relisted. An old version of the article can be viewed here. — xDanielxTalk 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as the closing admin. Consensus can change, and it seems that it did. --Eyrian 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - since nothing changed between the two AfDs, I think it makes a lot more sense to evaluate all the input from both AfDs and not only one. WP:CCC doesn't really say that we must go with the most recent consensus -- just that in some cases it is appropriate to do so. If we're going to be following policy strictly, I would argue that the second AfD was invalid because of the speedy keep guidelines. Again, I don't really think we should ignore the opinions in the second AfD because of a technicality (keeping in mind WP:IGNORE), but I don't think we should ignore those of the first AfD either. Whatever policy says, I really see no compelling reason to ignore any of the opinions that have been expressed, as they all related to the same issue. — xDanielxTalk 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Eyrian, a very new admin, should not have closed the discussion, as he has a definite position on such articles, as shown by having nominated a few dozen such in the last month. I support many such articles, but you won;t find me going in and closing even the more obvious ones. Most such Afds were in fact closed by neutral admins. DGG (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? When did newness have anything to do with it? I've spent plenty of time here on Wikipedia, and I know the policies well. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- (newness in not realising you shouldn't have closed on this, as you presumably held a strong opinion at the time)DGG (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably? I see, so this really is just a witch hunt. For the record, it was looking at AfDs like this that formed my opinions. --Eyrian 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Eyrian should not close any "X in popular culture" AFDs. He is too biased on the topic. In this case, the proper close was no consensus. GRBerry 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm seeing is a bunch of personal comments, stirred up by more recent actions, going against a clear majority of 7-4. --Eyrian 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure.
Eyrian should not have closed this, and I will respectfully ask that he not close any more popular culture articles as delete. That said, this is actually more clear-cut than many of the deletes. Many of the same invalid arguments to keep here, but more numerical support for deletion here than others that have closed. Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong with Eyrian closing it, but I think it would be helpful not to in the future. Cool Hand Luke 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Speedy Keep criterion mentioned by the nominator did not apply in this case, as it is used as a possible example of a nomination that is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". The nomination was not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption" and there were others recommending that it be deleted. WarpstarRider 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I think to some extent it's an issue with the organization and/or wording of the project page, as it seems like a borderline inconsistency. Semantics aside, I believe the reasoning of WP:SD#G4 applies for speedy keeps as well -- unless circumstances change substantially, the original decision should stand or be brought to DRV where appropriate. Perhaps we shouldn't ignore the second AfD since by chance it produced unusually different results, but I think we should at least consider the merits of both AfDs. — xDanielxTalk 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly interpreted th AFD discussion and deleted the article. Consensus can change and can change rapidly and there were no arguments presented in this AFD that offset the deletion concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 04:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "giant trivia/'in pop culture' fork" -- do you mean that concern? I don't think it's really a concern; it's more of a casual notice saying "if you are against pop culture articles, drop a delete vote here; if you support pop culture articles, please only vote once." I don't think evaluating the second AfD on argumentative merit is really plausible, considering the lack of depth and decisiveness in the discussion. — xDanielxTalk 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean all of the concerns raised by all of the people voicing the opinion to delete, not just the ones made by the nominator. Last I heard, all of the arguments made in the course of an AFD are supposed to be weighed, and even if the nomination itself is seen as weak (which I'm not saying this one was) other comments bringing up other concerns might not be. Closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides and came to an appropriate conclusion. Otto4711 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Remembering that "merge" is a form of "keep", not a form of "delete" I count this as 7:6 for deletion, which is clearly not a numerical consensus. I do not find the delete arguments overwhelmingly stronger than than the delete arguments -- whether a list is a "loosely associated collection of information" is a judgment call, and that was really the only point at issue here. On those grounds alone, this should have been closed as "no consensus". When you add in the relatively recent prior AfD (explicitly appealed to by at least one participant in the second AfD, it is at least arguably sensible to consider the two together. If that is done, there is far more clearly no consensus to delete. To tip this off, the closer had previously expressed strong views on this type of article, and he closed, in accord with those views, an AfD that was to put it mildly far from clear-cut. That alone would be a reason to overturn the close. Putting all these together makes this a very clear overturn indeed. I would add, I urge people not to relist either at once or within the next month or two. DES (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes. The ratio is irrelevant. I evaluated the strength of the arguments, and made my choice. And before people jump in and scream that I'm biased and can't possibly evaluate that fairly, please note that this is before I started nominating many articles myself. Since then, I have recused myself from closing such discussions. --Eyrian 14:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- AfDs are not pure votes. But AfDs are not just a matter of people giving advice to an admin or other closer, who then decides, either. AfDs are, in general, about determining consensus. (the exception is when a non-negotiable policy is clearly involved.) While the strengths of the arguments must be taken into account, and people expressing trivial arguments or ones that contravene policy may be discounted, when the matter is essentially a judgment call , the numbers do matter -- indeed they often should dominate the decision, IMO. I am uncomfortable deleting unless there is a significant super-majority for deletion or the arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for retention, and i think all closers should have that attitude. Closers should not "make a choice", they should evaluate what the collective choice of those who commented in the discussion is, insofar as that can be determined. When it can't the close should be "no consensus" unless there is an overriding non-negotiable policy being broken by the article, that can only be cured by deletion. DES (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree with "all closers should have that attitude". I think what you're doing constitutes sophistry, and I do not see it anywhere in the deletion policy. I looked at the arguments for keep, and determined they were not valid. The first had no explanation, the second admitted that importance was not justified, the third made reference to an AfD comprised entirely of "I like it", and the fourth said that it should be kept on the basis of original research. That simply doesn't fly. --Eyrian 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see where I am being sophistical, although i do see that you disagree with me. Note that Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached" That page indicates that arguments made in apparent bad faith may be disregarded, and that some arguments override all others (citing as examples detection of a copyvio and rewrites or addition of previously missing sources). It also indicates that clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NPOV require deletion "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching these three policies. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says: "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." It also says that: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article." I note that in your discussion of those who favored keeping the article, you do not address the views of those who opted for a merge -- please remember that these are in fact a subset of the keep views. WP:DP says "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing" Thus emphasizing there there must (normally) be a consensus to delete, and that in the absence of a consensus, the page should not be deleted. All that said, if all or most of those favoring delete gave invalid reasons, that is grounds to discount their views. One person referred to 'notable info" implicitly stating that at least some of it was notable. A second favored merging "sourced info" only, implying that such info as is sources should be retained. A third gave no particular reason. A forth opined that this was "Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films" which is a judgment on its notability and thus encyclopicity. A fifth included by reference all the arguments in the prior AfD. A sixth said that it should be kept because "the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact" which is a reason why content is a proper part of an encyclopedia. That is not OR, as I see it. (Reasons in the first afd included ""A Clockwork Orange" (both the Kubrick film and Burgess novel) have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to "random films" as the nominator has." and "Clockwork Orange has had significant influences on various types of popular culture, and this article demonstrates that" and "I think it is worth documenting the extent of influence of the film," none of which are simple "ILIKEIT" nor are they endorsements of OR, as all said that entries must be sourced.) DES (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus There doesn't appear to be any consensus on what to do with the article (keep, delete, or merge). --Farix (Talk) 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion USERFY if anyone wants to work on the merge Corpx 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion for the reasons stated in the debate, without prejudice to userfication for someone who wants to work on it for merger or resubmission if it can overcome the shortcomings that led to its deletion in the first place. I must say that attacking the integrity or alleged bias of the closing admin is becoming too frequent here and frankly taints any otherwise useful parts of the arguments raised by editors making those accusations. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and the notion of "crying wolf" comes to mind. That said, there are literally dozens of "in popular culture" or "cultural references to" articles that are going through Afd and we cannot expect that each be closed by a different admin, because after each admin's first closure either as keep, delete, or even no consensus, someone may imagine bias imparted toward the second closure. I personally won't close them - even the obvious ones, which I just skipped over in trying to get the 100 or so old unclosed afds closed - but that's my thin skin at not wanting to have said of me what some have said of the closing admin here. In these pop culture debates, the various "sides" are generally identifiable with a few "swing !votes" that may go one way or another, but again it's not necessarily weight of numbers, but weight of arguments. That emotions have run high and civility has been lost by several editors, seems to have spilled over to here. That's unfortunate, but it does not mean that the process or result was wrong. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. With all due respect to the closing admin and Carlossuarez46, closure by administrators who are emotionally invested for or against an article is a serious problem of conflict of interest and should absolutely not be ignored by deletion review, especially in cases like this one where consensus is not at all clear. Evouga 07:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that this AFD was nothing more than a judgment call - it could have been classified as no consensus or delete - and Eyrian just made the decision to delete it. You're all acting like this is some huge deal because he's a new administrator, but there's two things everyone seems to be ignoring: 1.) Yes, he's new, but he seems to have a strong understanding of Wikipedia policies and a good idea of how AFDs work. Were this any other administrator no one would be concerned with the decision; people are just criticizing Eyrian because he's new and it gives them a supposed "reason". And that's not right. 2.) Why is this such a big deal? Even if his decision wasn't what you yourself would have agreed with, we can simply undelete it if we really, really need to. That's what this discussion is for. So if you want the article to exist that badly, make comments on why it should exist, not why you disagree with Eyrian's decision. And so what if he was directly involved in the AFD? It was a pretty clear NC/delete, and he has the option to close it, regardless of his involvement. --ParakeetSong 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because DRV is about reviewing process, not whether or not the article should exist, which is the purpose of AfD. Administrative bias is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered here. Evouga 22:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then explain to me why it is that the DRVs that are currently on this page and every one that I've ever seen (not to mention participated in) are about the article and not the deletion process? --ParakeetSong 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple - process often (usually?) requires also evaluating the article content - in fact, for speedy deletions it always does. WP:CSD#A7 requires that the article be in certain topical areas and not have an assertion of notability - test via content. Similarly for any other speedy deletion criteria. When evaluating an XfD close, the question is whether the closing admin correctly judged consensus. Consensus is a function of weight of numbers (visible in XfDs) and weight of arguments - argument weights require testing article content, because false arguments get made sometimes and sometimes articles are improved (or made worse) after arguments are made. GRBerry 02:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it seems to me that the closing admin was left with a judgment call because the AFD was in between NC and delete. It was his choice. Was it a bad idea to do so while being directly involved in the debate? Sure, but there's not rule that explicitly says not to, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter. Think about it like this: yes, he was involved, but I'm sure there are plenty of other administrators who would have also read the AFD as "delete" and done exactly what he did. The fact that he was part of the debate is irrelevant; he deleted the article objectively, if you ask me. There's no reason to berate him for doing so when one can clearly see that the AFD could have been swung as NC or delete. --ParakeetSong 03:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why it is paramount that the closing admin who makes this judgment call have no emotional stake in the debate. Evouga 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you have to remember that people interpret "merge" differently. Does it count as a "delete" vote or a "keep" vote? If it counts as keep, the AFD went (6/1/6)(K/R/D); however, if it counts as delete, the article was (4/1/8) (K/R/D). So what is it, NC or delete? Both. It's really up to the closing administrator to decide. --ParakeetSong 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let's not forget that there were two AfDs, not only one. In terms of keep:delete votes, the most recent AfD was 6:6, 4:6, or 4:8 depending on how you count. The older one was 7:0 or 8:0 depending on how you count. Regardless, merging the two AfDs results in an overwhelming consensus for keep. As I said, both AfDs evaluated the very same issues under the same light. There was no new evidence, no new news, just a different group of editors which happened to stumble across the second AfD. I see no distinguishing factors between the two AfDs that might be reasons to disregard the old AfD. This isn't a case of consensus changing, unless you count a different random pool of editors with different agendas as a "consensus change." Approximately 20 editors have expressed opinions on the very same issues, none of them voiced notable concerns which hadn't already been considered (in all likelihood) by all the other editors. Unless someone can show that the eight editors involved in the first AfD were sockpuppets, or that they were editing under the influence, or that they had all incidentally posted in the wrong AfD, or something similar, I suggest that we consider both of the AfDs and not ignore the first. I realize that AfD is not a vote, but reviewing the two AfDs together shows that a very clear majority supported keeping the article. It takes a very blatant policy violation to support deletion in light of a ~70% overall consensus for keep. The policy-based deletion arguments were premised on applications of WP:NOT#DIR and the like, which are highly controversial (the applications, that is) and anything but blatant. — xDanielxTalk 11:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging two separate AFDs? What? That's completely ridiculous - yes, you can look back on previous nominations for an idea of what the consensus was back then, but how is this not a case of WP:CCC? Whether or not there was a change in the article or standards between the time of the first and second AFD doesn't matter. There were clearly different thoughts on the article in the second AFD. And maybe it was just a different group of editors who had very different views. So? The AFD was still borderline delete; no one is required to base the decision off any other AFD than the present unless there is a clear pattern of consensus or a long string of controversy (i.e., the GNAA). A single AFD that was a strong keep hardly fits that description. --ParakeetSong 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've still offered no reason at all for why we should give more weight to the more recent AfD in this case. The community's consensus does not "change" when a different handful of editors happens to stumble across an AfD. WP:CCC makes this very clear:
It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the current consensus — so in the new discussion section, provide a summary and links to any previous discussions about the issue on the articles talk page, or talk page archives, to help editors new to the issue read the reasons behind the consensus so that they can make an informed decision about changing the consensus. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.
- Our scenario is exactly what WP:CCC cautions is not a genuine consensus change. Among those who supported the deletion of the article in question, none of them mentioned the previous AfD. The second AfD didn't bring any "new information" to light (still quoting WP:CCC); there was and is no reason why the original AfD was "badly founded"; there were no "good reasons to believe a consensual decision was outdated"; and there were no "insights we did not have previously." The only difference was that a different group of editors with different individual views happened to stumble across the second AfD. If Democrats voted on a Monday, and Republicans on a Tuesday, ought we to conclude that "consensus changed" and ignore one of the two parties? I don't see any reasoning in the position, and I think WP:CCC clearly supports my view. — xDanielxTalk 02:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you honestly say that the policy on these types of articles or the article itself didn't change? Did you carefully go through RC every waking moment of every day between the first and second AFD to make sure? And how do you know that these kinds of articles aren't simply being deleted now because the mindset on them has changed? Can you tell what other people are thinking? No? Didn't think so. The thing is that you cannot say for certain that nothing changed between the first and second AFD. I can see very clearly what you're trying to insinuate here, and I can understand why you'd think it, but you have no way to prove it. Unless you somehow come up with a way to read the mind of every Wikipedian while simultaneously proving that the group of editors who voted on the second AFD were simply of a different bias than the first, we can only judge the merit of the article based on the current AFD discussion. The first AFD carries no weight because consensus can change, and we must look at the current consensus to determine what to do. Two thousand years ago it was believed that the Earth is flat; today it is believed that it is round. Should we look back two thousand years and use the ideals of science back then to determine that the Earth is flat? No, because the ideas changed and they are now accepted as correct. Had the Earth changed dramatically between the time of the two opposing views? No, it was basically the same. But the views had changed, and that it what is important. Have you considered that perhaps, between the time of the first and second AFD, the views on articles that list cultural references had changed? Because that's the only way that properly explains the difference in the first and second AFD And unless you can supply proof that the entire group of editors who voted on it were biased or that some sort of trickery was involved, you have no way of showing that views regarding lists of cultural references have not changed and that the second AFD was wrong. So why focus on the one from two thousand years ago that is outdated and has views that have likely changed? --ParakeetSong 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't prove beyond any possible doubt that none of the events which occured in the universe between the two AfDs could have had some diminutive effect on the will of the community. That does not imply that the opposite is true. Thankfully I don't have to reach an impossible degree of certainty to challenge a suggested consensus change, just as editors don't have to search every document that was ever written in order to challenge a subject's notability. We're not dealing with a time gap of 2,000 years; in this case the time gap is four months and one day. Yes, views on IPC have changed, though very little in the past four months compared to the time span ranging back 2-3 years (massive escalation of user base). But judging by comments, it seems that the reason why 8 editors unanimously voted Keep the previous time wasn't because they were IPC enthusiasts (well, perhaps one), but because the specific content of this article caused it to stand out as worth of inclusion. The nomination started with "Another 'in popular culture' section . . ." and "There is nothing encyclopaedic about "references to <randomly chosen film> in popular culture", so a list of same is defintely not encyclopaedic." The first commentator voted "Delete with the rest of popular culture", then followed it up with "Comment, should have read the ting ... was slightly prejudisced by the rest of popular culture". Then there was "seems better written and more verified than most 'in culture' articles," and "'A Clockwork Orange' . . . have been considered highly controversial and influential and cannot be fairly compared to 'random films' as the nominator has." The majority of editors in the first AfD evaluated the article based on its contents and not the word "culture" in the title, so their arguments still hold despite any (probably negligible) communal changes in the past few months. If there have been changes to the articles itself, all the better -- overturning the second AfD would allow the community to pick which of the versions it liked best, or to incorporate bits from each. — xDanielxTalk 12:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems pretty clear to me that the community is moving very strongly against popular culture articles. While they were largely untouched a few months ago, about 40% of Category: In popular culture has now been deleted. That says to me that there is strong community consensus against these articles. And I only closed one of the AfDs. --Eyrian 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- And heck, if it's kept the first time we can always renominate in a few months time...please drop the generalizations Eyrian and synonymising you views with "Wikipedia" or "The Community". Many people are unaware of AfD debates until well after the fact.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm sure it's intellectually convenient to think of the recent deletions as the work of a dedicated cabal of editors working in concert, that's simply not the case. I've seen a wide variety of individuals participate in the discussions, for a variety of reasons. And I have not made any attempt to coordinate efforts with another editor, nor have I seen any such efforts happening, except on the side of those that want to keep such articles. I've provided some solid evidence that the community perception about these articles is changing, i.e. the fact that a lot of them are being deleted by a variety of admins looking at the discussions of a variety of users. And in return, you have complained about the general deletion process, and difficulty of notification. I simply don't think the two are comparable. --Eyrian 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture exists serves as a lot easier way for folk who are interested in deleting the articles in question can be kept in the loop than those who may be interested in keeping them. OK, there are a variety of admins but it is a small number taking a very active role at nominating a large number. Even that's ok as you're entitled to your opinion but its when there are group nominations, which at times which generally serve to obfuscate the issue and close debates as delete with only marginal majority in cases where deleters cite incorrect reasons such as article quality and ignore (1) articles with reliable sources and (2) notability - that is what I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture be any more useful to those that want to remove such articles than those that want to keep them? Group nominations don't generally make the article "easier" to delete. I've seen AfDs speedy closed because people think it in bad form to link so many. --Eyrian 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- They did in the dino articles - resulting in the time-consuming argument we're having below this one...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent) Or maybe the process worked just fine, and a lot of people thought those articles should be axed. Reading the dinosaur AfD, it seems that most people really only cared about the main article. Again, I'm listing community discussions that strongly indicate that consensus has changed, and you're simply upset that a few of those instances (out of a great many) might be flawed, even though I think there's evidence against even that. Sometimes consensus changes in ways we might not like, and that looks to me to be the main objection of the people trying to overturn this. --Eyrian 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eyrian you read it how you want; as I said above, its the means that I object to.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus, because there seems to be a larger active debate on the popular culture/cultural reference articles at hand here and I think that issue is more of what is being debated rather than the individual merits of these articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn due to lack of consensus. It is arbitrary for admins to act in this way. Another admin could have acted differently. The outcome of discussions should be predictable - that is what "no consensus" is for, providing a predictable outcome in uncertain cases. Abberley2 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Due to the AFD being borderline NC/delete. No, I have not voted yet. My reasoning is seen in the paragraphs above. --ParakeetSong 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Note: thanks to my low edit count and lack of participation in the community, this account may seem a tad suspicious. I am aware of that. If you would like to know the editor I was formerly - before I retired and created this account for emergency use only - please contact me via my talk page. I will be more than happy to confirm who I am. )[reply]
|
