Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Essjay

Random header to move this below the TOC

It hasn't been adequately explained why there are two discussion sections -- I surmise the possibility of avoiding edit conflicts, but it isn't clear. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just arbitrary, to break up the page a little bit. Smee 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

It is indeed. It is difficult to edit a page with only one edit section when it gets to a large size, as it's a lot of text to load. I would expect to see further breaks as the discussion grows, for convenience's sake. Proto ► 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope the discussion isn't allowed to grow. Why this wasn't speedy deleted is beyond me. Jeffpw 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Admin hat on) Speedy deletion is only used in clear and uncontroversial cases where it is patently obvious to all that an article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It can be seen from this AFD discussion that not all contributors believe this to be the case. On more general terms, in any controversial issue, or cases that have drawn a great deal of attention, it is best to allow the discussion to proceed as normal, rather than ending it peremptorily. This avoids any potential claims of abuse, or covering up a situation. If this is closed early, I will block the offender until one minute past the crack of doom. Proto ► 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, since I feel your remarks were addressed to me, I had no plans to close this discussion. From my understanding of policy, closing of Afds is only done by admins, unless it is non-controversial and patently obvious what the outcome will be. Even then, I always think admins should be the one to do it. I was merely saying that I think this is patently non-notable to anybody who doesn't drink large amounts of Wiki Kool-Aid. It's also clear (to me, anyway) that this article was not written in good faith. So I was surprised it was not tagged Speedy. But by all means, let the entire community make the decision. Jeffpw 12:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jeff, just to clarfiy, that last sentence wasn't addressed to you, it was a general point (which I've also made on the AFD itself). I don't think you'd be daft enough to close it early. Proto ► 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Essjay incident

Within the discussion I have noted an interesting variation, instead of having a Bio about Essjay we could rename the article as proposed above and redirect Essjay to it. That way we don't give the impression that we are hiding something and at the same time take the opinion of those into consideration that simply consider the incident notable, not the person that caused it. BTW the original idea is from Brianyoumans, not trying to decorate myself with false plumage Alf^Photoman 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

S-Protection is wrong

Anons have every right to participate in this discussion. This is not an RfA. —M (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This was an IAR decision taken after a small consensus gathering at the community board (if I recall correctly). While usually I agree with you, this is a very exceptional case, and the discussion is already too long and complex to allow for sockpuppets to begin popping up. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird argument

I don’t get the rationale in [1] and similar arguments. From the edit summary: ‘don't try to delete articles that illustrate vulnerabilities in Wikipedia or people's willingness to commit fraud or mispresentation’. As far as I can tell, it is absolutely, completely, totally irrelevant for any page in main space whether it illustrates these things. Analysis of Wikipedia procedures belongs in user: or wikipedia:, analysis of the human nature at large belongs in psychology journals. Is there a new policy I hadn’t noticed? —xyzzy_n 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to watch The X-Files to understand the rationale :-) Truly speaking, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and if he believes it can be considered and attempt to hide the truth, he is free to think so. -- ReyBrujo 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Early closure?

Closed after only 48 hours? - Denny 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the news about the NYT article just came in and at least two users changes their opinions based on that data point. JoshuaZ 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... is this gonna be another Brandt mess? It kidna looks like a keep based on how people are saying keep... - Denny 07:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

El_C seems to have gone to bed. I'm way too involved to revert the closure, but this is just bad news. We really don't need this kind of drama. JoshuaZ 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

El_C just posted a response to your comments on his talk page. Thankfully, he is still awake. – Lantoka (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was an early closure. In fact, I think the whole AfD was premature; it's a breaking story, it seems like at the very least a waste of time to delete and merge when we don't even know how far-reaching or persistent the topic will eventually be. In particular I think the ruling of salting for a year is unnecessary and misguided. This isn't Brian Peppers, it is a very legitimate, mainstream news story. Anchoress 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, some of my closing comment appear to have been accidentally removed by myself. I'll try to recreate them right now. El_C 07:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV'd already

sigh. - Denny 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from project page

Doug Bell probably did not notice the debate was closed upon entering his comment — I have moved it from the project page, bellow. El_C 07:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lynch mob? I think not. That "lynch mob" just saved our ass from getting roasted in the NYT by showing that the community here takes this breach seriously. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I Just Did a Quick Tally...

93 (47%) Delete
64 (33%) Keep
21 (11%) Merge
9 (5%) Redirect
5 (3%) Rename
4 (2%) Wait
(196 Total)

Or another way to look at it...

123 (63%) Delete / Merge / Redirect
69 (35%) Keep / Rename
4 (2%) Wait
(196 Total)

Regards, – Lantoka (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but the NYT source potentially drastically changes things. JoshuaZ 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This tally hopefully illustrates the fact that this AfD is borderline and that pertinent new information could very well tip the balance. – Lantoka (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gwen Gale 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the NYT story (or similar ones that preceded or would have followed it from publications of that magnitude) would have made a significant impact on the consensus (i.e. this isn't Wikinews) and the more substantive considerations expressed in favour of redirect were of a different nature. See my restored closing statements for detail. Thanks, El_C 09:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but as observed, right before your closure two users changes their opinions, and that was with only a few minutes of knowledge about the NYT article. So empirically your reasoning about how the NYT would alter things is at best not supported by the evidence. JoshuaZ 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not interpret the NYT mention to have resulted in such an impact; though it is possible that I misread. El_C 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, both Doug and I changed our positions before your close based on the article and we were only aware of it for a few minutes. JoshuaZ 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a additional note, "Merge" recommendations are generally not counted towards "delete". Even if 63% said delete, that still should be considered a non-consensus. See also: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. I suspect this will be reopened per the pileon DRV, at which point one can check User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/Many_votes--Leflyman^Talk 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, a merge is tantamount to a delete, since the Essjay article's text would cease to exist at the article Essjay. It would be merged into one of several other articles. So, purely from a perspective of deciding whether or not to keep the text of the article or turn it into a protected redirect, merge can be associated with "delete". – Lantoka (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• After an AFD, if "merge" is the consensus, then a discussion takes place on the article's page -- hence, a "merge" should not be construed as a delete, since if deleted, there would be nothing to merge. A non-qualified redirect, in contrast, is a "delete" recommendation, with a pointer to a particular page. --Leflyman^Talk 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree dude. Again, it's just for the purposes of gauging what people expect the final fate of the article to be. Just because I include merge in the delete category doesn't mean I don't want it to be merged first. – Lantoka (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of "do not close this early" did we not understand

Yeesh. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? PTO 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What do we expect from a project that embraces ignoring all rules as a policy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem only occurs when Ignore some truths becomes policyMunta 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this kind of discussion really productive? – Lantoka (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Really useful encyclopedic discussion is telling people to stop communicating. WAS 4.250 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the manner in which policy is being ignored on this AfD. Our policies should be taken more seriously than some wikiphilosophy essays, especially in times of controversy. I also just took a look at IAR for the first time in eight months, and found that IAR has become a policy. I'm surprised people haven't exploited that more often. — Deckiller 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what happens when you glorify ignoring rules for its own sake, which is exactly the sort of behavior it is supposed to discourage. Maybe if people would spend less time calling each other names like "process-wonk" and less time trying to be the FIRST to close some controversial AFD or other, there would be less of this disruption. Milto LOL pia 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. — Deckiller 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Article created by anon

Could someone explain how this article was created by an IP address? I was under the impression that wasn't possible after the John Seigenthaler incident. John Vandenberg 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, the first edit I see on the history is by "QuiTacetConsentiret" In any event, there's an easy way to have something look like an anon created it. Have a registered user create it, have the anon edit it, then have an admin delete the difs that were written by the initial users. This will generally violate the GFDL if any content is shared between versions but is doable from a software perspective. JoshuaZ 04:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see it was created by "QuiTacetConsentiret". Probably my mistake. John Vandenberg 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

An attack article under this title was created by an anon in 2005, later speedily deleted, and accidentally restored again later. Kusma (討論) 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which points into the direction of a sock-puppet or an old throw-away account was used to create this... I wish that some people had the guts to stand by their controversial actions. Alf^Photoman 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

With all the gaming and vendettas that go on here? For example, who likes to be the subject of a menacing parody and other ridicule written by David Gerard? Gwen Gale 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was leaning towards this being a "point" when I raised the question earlier; the creation of this article was unnecessarily disruptive to the objective of writing an encyclopedia. It could have been adequately covered on Wikinews until it was clear that the subject was notable, and the resulting wikipedia article would have been a better article for the delay. Also, maybe we wouldn't see so many admins on (extended) wikibreaks as they would have had more time to fight the battles they felt were important. John Vandenberg 10:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect adherence to wikiprocess. I don't have much time for wikilawyering though. It was clear there were efforts from "on high" (whatever that means) to dump the whole thing down a memory hole. I mean, look at how the AfD for this article was closed. First prematurely and out of process, then re-opened and when a consensus which was utterly overwhelming for a keep appeared, an admin (for whatever reason) closed it as "no consensus" and even tossed in the word "messy." It's all a wonk. Gwen Gale 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentire videtur - He that is silent is thought to consent —M (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

and that is why we should see what we learn from this mess and quit being silent. As to Vendettas and so on... there must be a way to resolve it or this will end up being the generally accepted authority on triviality with the biggest collection of knowledge about (pokemon?) .... Alf^Photoman 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget Klingon. Gwen Gale 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scrap it

Let's scrap it and start over. Who knows how many people "voted" earlier and are not following the new developments. Milto LOL pia 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A very good idea, particularly when so much has changed and there is more news coverage from reputable international sources... Smee 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed and implemented. This can always come back to AFD, but there's so much going on RIGHT NOW that most of this discussion is obsolete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I happened to strike my vote, but this seems like the best option for now, since others may not consider that to which Miltopia referred. Gracenotes^T § 11:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And comming to an end

As I was saying when I was interrupted:

now that some of us could say the famous sentence: without malicious glee told you so isn't it time we stop fighting about the notability of this thing and start thinking about the lessons to learn of this to start a debate on what has to be corrected so at least the most damaging side effects cannot happen again in the future?

Alf^Photoman 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You Know...

This wouldn't be such a big deal if we didn't act like it was such a big deal. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think our actions made it enough of a deal for the NYT, the BBC, ABC and others? JoshuaZ 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that's not what I meant. I know why the major news outlets picked it up, that's easy enough to see. However, I'm saying that many of us knew about this long before the media picked it up (and before the NYer issued the correction)...but did we freak out about it? Nope. Suddenly now that the media has picked it up, we see the need to suddenly change our opinion and condemn everything he's done? I just think it's rather stupid, and everyone is freaking out way too much. I can tell you that were Essjay to ever come back, I'd be right at the top of the list for supports for his sysop, b-crat, oversight and checkuser privileges back, regardless of what god almighty seems to think. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Many of us knew about this... before the NYer issued the correction"? Really? I recall about a dozen people discussing this on Essjay's user talk page — and the individual who politely pushed the matter was berated as a troll. The fact is that the vast majority of Wikipedians had no idea about this until after the New Yorker published its correction, and the discussion started on Jimbo's talk page. (I know that's when I first heard about it.)

This is a fairly major scandal, and I think that as a community, we're freaking out just about the right amount. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about this until the day JW responded to the New Yorker correction by saying he didn't have a problem with it. Gwen Gale 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get why this is such a major scandal supposedly. So he made a false persona and used it to back up his edits? Who cares? How do you know any of the info on my userpage (or anyones's for that matter) is real? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who I'm replying to so this is unindented. Sorry. Anyway, I think ^demon is right, no one cared about this in late January. What set all of this off anyway? Milto LOL pia 13:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

while it stayed internal to wikipedia, there were a few people who asked for Essjays explanation and it would have remained an internal discussion (out of project). However, once the media go hold of the story, it became a relivant entry to the encyclopedia. The fact he had false information on his user page is of little importance. The fact he used it to back up his edits is of great importance and the fact he used it in an interview is of huge importance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Munta (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 March 2007

Essjay's edits are a sideshow. The wider worry is he was sent to a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist by Wikipedia management for an interview, represented his MUD CV to her as genuine and was later hired as an employee of Wikipedia's for-profit spinoff. The lid blew off, so to speak, when an acknowledged (and by most accounts, abrasive and baiting) enemy of Jimbo tipped off the New Yorker that the CV was a fraud. Knowing Brandt was responsible, Wales initially blew it off as more trivial meatspace trolling but this was indeed a botch, which Wales later admitted. Most of us feel bad for Essjay but he got sucked into Wikipedia's MUD side and truth be told, Wikipedia's leadership sent him out into the wild with nothing but lavish praise when all Essjay had to offer the meatspace world was his MUD avatar CV, a dodgy thing even at Wikipedia and outright fraud in the real world. Gwen Gale 13:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is the cabal knew. The Foundation knew. They didn't do anything about it. They didn't think it was a big deal. This has wider implications. —M (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they botched it. Hope they learned something, Wikipedia's flawed, but a big docking marvel. Gwen Gale 14:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My main worry is that officially or officiously somebody about whom nobody knew anything was sent as exponent to represent Wikipedia ... does anybody know who the people (really) are that speak for us in public? Or is this a whole collection of alternate-worlders and nobody really cares about the reality which is ignored by editing Wikipedia? Alf^Photoman 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why anyone gives a crap, but perhaps that's just me. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Becuase he lied to a reporter and used his false credentials as a justification for content decisions? You don't see anything wrong with that? JoshuaZ 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, they do. Meanwhile, I think it's unlikely they'll be sending a MUD spokesperson out again anytime soon. Gwen Gale 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what Essjay does or doesn't do as long as it does not reflect on the project. What everybody seems to ignore is that there are many people who actually pay for this being done (no matter if you call it donation or rear-end-of-a-truck) and they now must wonder what the hell we are doing with their money and what kind of characters escaped from the Loony-Toones are going about spending it. This is the second major scandal ... if there is another one I wonder who is going to pay for the servers this runs on (if we get to the third one). Alf^Photoman 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the looming subtext. Gwen Gale 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF?

I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia editing, so am not as clued up on all the policy as perhaps some others are. However, during the AfD discussion for the 'Essjay saga' article, I saw a few people propose that we should not have this article as it contravenes WP:SELF. From reading WP:SELF however, its clear that it is a guideline on style, rather than substance. That is, it is concerned with the way an article is written rather than the contents of the article. I don't think we could delete an article because it breaches WP:SELF, or rather, if an article did breach WP:SELF would it not just be a case of re-writing the article to remove any self-referential lanuguage? WP:SELF itself states that "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia"...."in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia". It appears to me therefore, that WP:SELF would not be grounds for deletion of the article, and could only really be evoked to alter the style in which the article is written. Any other thoughts on this? Malbolge 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so long as the article is supported only by qualified and verifiable non WP sources, there is no self-reference. Gwen Gale 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELF is often thrown around by editors who like to spout WP:ALPHABET without actually reading the policy/guideline. —M (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Which applies to many other guidelines too Alf^Photoman 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when/if the AfD debate is ressurected we can argue against evocation of WP:SELF as a criteria for deletion then. Thanks. Malbolge 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, it is so important to patrol the article and make sure the body of the text is supported only by references to external, verifiable sources. For example, even a quote of Jimbo, although readily available on his talk page or in its history, is acceptable only if it has been published elsewhere (for example, by a news outlet, no blogs or personal web sites) and then referenced from there back into the article. Gwen Gale 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LBy "published elsewhere" I assume that you mean "referenced definitively from elsewhere", right? Direct links to primary sources are good, provided that the primary sources have been analyzed by secondary sources to the extent that they are notable. Gracenotes^T § 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, I agree. There is a tendency on behalf of editors to inflate the importance of events related to Wikipedia. However, there is a counter-tendency to do the exact opposite, often citing WP:SELF as reason to avoid mentioning people who are notable because of Wikipedia. If we are to be an encyclopaedia, we need to judge these people objectively, as if they are unrelated to us. Trebor 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing policy works: If it's not notable, there won't anything to cite from independent, verifiable sources. If it is notable, there is no need to reference WP content. The only worries are caused by editors who don't read the policies (or worse, cite the acronyms only to intimidate and game the system with no heed to what the policies truly say). Gwen Gale 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I still think this article, at whatever title, should be deleted

It seems irreparably biased, which would make it a WP:BLP violation... not to mention that it seems cruel to me.

Too bad I am commenting after the AfD has closed.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There will be another AfD soon, and another , and another .... and while we are debating whether Essjay is notable none of the systemic errors that plague wikipedia will be addressed because we are to busy debating Alf^Photoman 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do not care if Essjay is notable or not, I just do not think it is possible to write a neutral, BLP-conformant article on him. Besides, we Wikipedians should take care of our own more. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until 24 hours ago it was a very NPOV article that discussed the facts of the event rather than Essjay as a person. Unfortunately, with over 50 edits in 20 minutes it became too much to manage and I (and I'm sure others) gave up trying to restore the page to NPOV. I'm hoping that it will calm down and can be restored so that it doesn't focus on the person and gets back its NPOV. Unfortunately, It seems too many people are wanting to edit that article at the moment. I would hope the article stays once things calm down a bit as I've spent many hours trying to make it a worthwhile entry. At the moment, I've just lost patience with it - Munta 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. Making it nice and neutral would include showing the other side of the story - all of the good things Essjay has done - or at least that is what I think. But that would probably being a blatant WP:A violation... or maybe not, as I might not understand correctly. Focusing on the event rather than the person seems like an improvement, but it seems to me to be a problem that none of the secondary sources talk much about Essjay's positive contributions. In any case, I appreciate your efforts, I am just rather pessimistic on the whole issue. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted that the article is not ABOUT ESSJAY but about the scandal he caused? Alf^Photoman 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My stupid brain misses the fine distinction. *not sarcastic. I'm sure I am being stupid, but the two topics don't seem that far apart to me* — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said they were so far apart and nobody said that the article has to mention Essjay in as far the context does not require it. We should be very careful that this does not end in Essjay bashing, witch hunt or burning heretics on the stake. There is a fine line that we should not pass. What we cannot do is to go on to the next point on the agenda pretending nothing has happened and trying to delete an article because WE DON'T LIKE IT. And surely we cannot adhere to the first reaction of the whole chain of command (fine irony) that nothing has happened and everything is fine as it is Alf^Photoman 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Saving Essjay some emotional pain doesn't seem like a bad reason to delete the article to me. Essjay did do a lot for the encyclopaedia, so it might not be a bad idea to return the favour a little. I completely agree that Essjay-bashing is not-good... but if we are going to have it, we may as well say good things about Essjay too. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have nothing against that, but then we would have to go back to a biographical article called Essjay and I hate to see the reaction to that. Alf^Photoman 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The current title "Essjay controversy", does imply that there are at least two sides to the issue, doesn't it? (If it doesn't, that would probably make it a POV Fork, but I don't think that's the case.) So "the good things about Essjay" would be one side of the controversy, wouldn't it? Of course, the secondary source's lack of interest in Essjay would probably mean some blatant WP:A violations would need to be committed to get the positive things in there. On the other hand, self-published sources are allowed in articles about themselves, so if we interpret the Essjay controversy as being an article about Wikipedia, we could cite ourselves, right? Okay, I'm stretching it, but if we are going to cite bad sources, we may as well be blatant about it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of luck... and wear a helmet Alf^Photoman 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I become involved in the article, I'll be sure to come fully puffed up in full armour.[2]  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)