Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:46, 9 November 2012

Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law

Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eponymously named essay not appropriate for mainspace, should be userfied Nobody Ent 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy per nom. GiantSnowman 17:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy, personal essay tuned for personal rather than general use. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ...Including Delete regarding the mainspace link. That is, move the page but do not leave a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Was noted on UT:Jimbo Wales etc. The essay also contains comments by others, and hence is not the product of a single user - though the use of an exact quote from a number of pages is present in it. And it is relevant in general to Misplaced Pages. As for "not appropriate for mainspace" when an essay is directly related to Misplaced Pages itself, it seems that calling it "inappropriate" is in itself inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy Collect says that this law should be treated in the same way as Godwin's law and cannot be edited. If that is the case it should be an article not an essay and of course sources would be required. I notice that Collect uses this essay and his other essay, WP:KNOW, to insult other editors, rather than discussing the merits of their arguments. TFD (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Kindly deal with what I say and not with what you assert. The quote is a quote. We do not alter quotes. There is, moreover, a section on the essay page for comments - which is where differences of opinion can be worked on, but altering a direct quote is not something which is supported by any policy or guideline in any space. We also do not "edit" the US Constitution if it is quoted - nor do I alter quotes from "The Four Deuces." Cheers. As for your personal attack here -- MfD is not the place for such incivility. Collect (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: needs some formatting work, but there's a long precedent for such things. WP:TenPoundHammer's Law for example.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference with that case is that TenPoundHammer created it in userspace, and moved it into mainspace 2.5 months later with edit summary "This is cited often enough that it can probably be moved out of userspace". Besides which, has WP:OTHERSTUFF been deprecated?? Rd232 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment If this essay is not appropriate for main space, can someone explain the reason(s) why? Just saying it is inappropriate doesn't pass muster as an argument.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• • (i) it's bad to name essays after people. If other people do it and it sticks, so be it - but to do it yourself is vanity of the highest order. And it's not helpful, because it means the title isn't descriptive at all. (ii) the way in which this essay is formulated around a quote which cannot be changed means it is different from all other essays, since it is in its essence uneditable. It should not need any further explanation that this is inappropriate for mainspace. Rd232 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I can try to explain. Firstly, Misplaced Pages prohibits page ownership: everyone can modify the text you enter. However, this page intrinsically implies Collect's ownership. Indeed, Colect's argument is "This is a quote from me, and you cannot modify it". That is a typical ownership. Moreover, Collect modifies contributions of others in such a way that he is acting as a mediator. He signs his contributions, which is totally unacceptable in the main space, because Misplaced Pages has no authorship. In other words, there are severe and intrinsic issues with this page, which ran be resolved only by userfying it.

Meanwhile, I found that WP:TenPoundHammer's Law was created as a humorous essay . i think that may be an alternative solution: remove signatures, Collect's editorialising, and add the "humor" template. If that will be done, the essay can stay in main space.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And I submit that altering what is identified as a quote is improper per se but that your added opinions are absolutely welcomed on the essay page itself - which is a rational position to take. Else an edit might change it to be "Collect said that 'all editors are purple' " which is not a rational argument, wouldn't you agreee? Cheers. BTW, the position is not "humor" but you are welcome to see if consensus abides by your opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the content of the page we're discussing, I'm quite surprised that Collect said "cheers." Collect, are you cheerless? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am far from "cheerless" though I suspect the specific editor who added that non-helpful edit in this "game" is likely in that category <g>. Collect (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Policy states that Essays can be the opinion or advice of a single editor, and if that opinion is expressed in the form of a quote, then I don't think directly altering that quote is appropriate as it would change the essence of that opinion. Editors are free to edit elsewhere as appropriate. The only real criteria for userfying is that it is found to contradict widespread consensus, but I find myself agreeing with its essence. --Nug (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy Per Rd232, Nobody Ent, myself et al.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy. A page that starts with the words "After nearly four decades on-line, I posit the following..." clearly doesn't belong in mainspace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Emended to fix your cavil. Collect (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is still clearly a personal opinion. In the unlikely event that it isn't userfied, I will propose that it be renamed as Collect's vague and unverifiable assertion accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy permits personal opinion. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly: so we can have a discussion about whether my opinion regarding the correct title for the essay is more valid than Collect's... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment immediately after my initial post at BLP/N was "Seconded" by an editor here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy or even delete. It's kinda cute, but, of course, lacks the authority it implicitly claims. It's not useful in Misplaced Pages space. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Userfy per consensus reached here. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep; it's just another essay. Don't userfy unless the user request it, because essays are appropriate in WP:space. Note that there's no evidence (at least that I've found) that this page or its contents have ever been in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy - "One person quoting himself does not make for an appropriate wikipedia space essay." - SudoGhost's Law. This essay's title, theme, and how Collect edits the page all perfectly fit into the description of "User essays" at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays, suggesting that it belongs in the user space. - SudoGhost 21:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy Although I happen to completely agree with the principle expressed by this essay, it seems pretty clear that Collect desires that nobody change the wording of the "law" itself, instead insisting on the bizzarre convention of having a comments section for any proposed alterations. If you want to own the message, keep it in userspace. That is exactly why some of my own essays are in my userspace, because I did not want them altered into something genericized, I wanted them to reflect my position. There's nothing wrong with doing that so long as you do it in your own userspace and not community space. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
• Userfy. If kept in project space, the comments must go on the talk page, there must be no signatures in the body (quotes excepted), and User:Collect must strive to avoid even an appearance of WP:OWNership, preferably by using the talk page instead of editing directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Consider it done. Collect (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid idea for study for the good of the project, and given Collect's promise to let go of OWNership. There is room for this essay to grow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userify - This seems to come down to whether the essay is a user essay ("User essays have a purpose similar to essays placed in the project namespace; however, they are often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Misplaced Pages or do not contain enough advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors to be considered a Misplaced Pages essay") (see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages essays) or a project namespace essay. Misplaced Pages:Collect's Law seems more of a strictly personal viewpoint about Misplaced Pages. There's multiple variables as to why a person posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion or why a person is most insistent that only specific sources which he favours know the facts. The conclusions drawn by the "Law" don't often flow from the premise enough to amount omore than a strictly personal viewpoint, likely only applying in narrow circumstances. Moreover, there isn't many What Links Here links. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy as one editor's opinion, who claims ownership of it (via the possessive use of the editor's username). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Move to userspace It's hard to believe this essay has managed to stay in mainspace this long. Nothing personal against Collect, who I think is a fine editor; it's just that we could wind up with thousands of these "laws". Collect's observation is, generally speaking, sound, but as BMK says, it's stil just one editor's opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userify; it's pithy, it's generally true, and it's one editor's opinion which has no place in project space given that it's not open to tweaking like community essays should be. Editor's observations on Misplaced Pages are normally held in those editors' user spaces, I can see no compelling reason why this one should be an exception. — Coren  04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: The essay is now substantialy expanded to comply with all the concerns expressed. Other than those who hold the belief that "wrong essays" do not belong, of course. <g> Collect (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That you've expanded it doesn't change its nature, Collect. It remains your personal opinion and quote, just now in a more polished setting. Is there a reason why you are not satisfied with keeping this in your user space like hundreds of others have done? — Coren  14:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

First - the only remaining cavil is that it has a name on it - which can be dealt with by a rename to "Perseveration" or the like - and the position is exactly that held not only by one editor but by reliable sources cited in the essay, thus that cavil fails. As for claims that this is "slef-aggrandizement" - that is not even a reasonable !vote at MfD in the first place <g>. And note that it is absolutely "open to tweaking" which removes that cavil as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy, not appropriate for mainspace, certainly not under that title. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Titles are not grounds for deletion - the place to ask for a change in title is on the essay talk page - not here. The question here is whether the essay (as it now stands) violates any policy or guidelines for Misplaced Pages, not whether folks agree or disagree with it. In short - it now has appreciable added content, and as such meets all the requirements I have found. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy. This is an obvious attempt at self-aggrandizement.```Buster Seven Talk 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficently neutral and without personal editorializing to be a outlier of the mainspace essays. Not a first tier essay, but sufficently useful that there is no harm in having this be a main space. Using the same comparison, WP:TPHL is annother essay written initially by a single editor, but contains the same observable truth. Hasteur (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I concede Collect has significantly improved this essay as a result of severe criticism, however, his assertion that "the only remaining cavil is that it has a name on it - which can be dealt with by a rename" is wrong. Leaving minor issues aside, I see a major problem with the law itself: it implies that the size of text posted by some user is reversely proportional to the probability that he is right. That is simply not true. For example, many newcomers frequently ask essentially the same questions on the WWII talk page, and they are not satisfied with a brief advise to look through archives, and the FAQ page (created specifically for this purpose), considering this advise offensive. I have to repeatedly explain the same things again and again. Does it mean I am "least likely to be correct"? Of course, no. Consider the opposite example: a person who occasionally posts "I disagree. No consensus for that" without bothering to explain his position. Is he is most likely to be right? Not only he isn't, such behaviour contradicts to our policy, which prohibits to count voices in content disputes.
I would say, Collect's corollary seems to be much more reasonable, and I fully support it. Moreover, I would say this corollary is most likely to be a law, not the initial Collect's law. If we replace the law with the corollary, I would be totally satisfied, and would withdraw my proposal to userfy this essay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In short - you disagree with the content of the essay, but not with any policy supporting removal from projectspace? Would whoever closes this please assign such opinions their proper weight for an MfD discussion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account the overall tone of your responce, I find your "Cheers" hypocritical.

Regarding the policy, yes, the essay in its initial form was a blatant violation of our policy and guidelines: for example, users' signatures are not allowed in a main space. I concede that you have done a considerable work in attempts to address severe criticism of the essay, and I cannot rule out that, under some circumstances, the essay may be brought into accordance with the requirements of our policy. I think, this my statement (as well as my above post) is a demonstration of my good faith, and it does not deserve your acrimonious response (and even more acrimonious edit summary).

Meanwhile, anticipating a possibility that we may decide that the essay can stay (again, that cannot be completely ruled out now), I decided to comment on the essay proper. However, your aggressive responce is a demonstration that you haven't abandoned your attempts to claim ownership of this essay, so, my optimism was probably somewhat premature.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• userfy or delete - valueless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but rename, else, Userfy. If this is another Wikipedian blogosphere-like essay, then userfy. If it's to be used to express an opinion about a current practice which happens in relation to policy (such as CON, in this case) then, I don't see why it can't exist in project space like other such essays. But the essay needs to be clearer on this if it is to be kept in project space. - jc37 06:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I propose Renaming to WP:Collected laws. There now seems to be four. (Aren't there similar lists of cute asserted truisms?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Raul654/Raul's laws, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, I think WP:Collected laws should exist independently, and link to the various similar essays, which seem to exist in userspace, and projectspace. I think User:Collect should userfy his essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I propose Renaming to WP:Pompous Posturing. These are not truisms. They are ramblings. Valueless. They serve no purpose.```Buster Seven Talk 09:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And when those opining to delete or userfy the essay are the one's who added the 'ramblings' , what ought one consider? I fear this is now becoming "gaming" to some of them, and ask anyone closing to so note. I would also note some of those are editors who have long vuewed themselves as my adversaries - including some who have repeatedly nominated or voted to delete my essays in the past, or who opined that they were like "Sam Spade" "investigating" me for "derogatory information" and not simply disinterested passers-by noting "pompous posturing" but might have an agenda here. And I would also suggest that when folks object to an essay that they ought not "add" stuff to the essay to make a "point" which is what has now occured. Collect (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sam Spade. That would be me. See ]. Since Collect refuses to give me credit at his talk page and yet he posts my quote at the front door, I thought I might come to this venue for relief. I'm sure Collect will delete upon sight but that is to be expected. I do have an agenda...to reveal Collect for the provocatuer that he is. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: On the essay talk page I propose a rename to WP:Perseveration on article topics and suggest that, since that was the actual focus of the essay, that disinterested editors emend some of the "additions" to it. The rename, of sourse, is not supposed to be done while this discussion continues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and revert the mess that is there now is not what Collect originally intended. It's OK for other editors to edit essays in the main WP space, but they shouldn't change the original intention, especially not in a way that makes it look worse during the MfD. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The essay in its original form can't possibly have been intended seriously--another editor, one of our most intelligent, has remarked on what I would have thought was already obvious to even the most half-witted reader, namely the spurious premise of the original so-called law. So it was clearly an attempt at humour, perhaps with Charles Pooter in mind. Sadly, although the additions by others improve the piece by making it slightly funnier (not hard to do), they're not enough to redeem it: its substance remains valueless, as someone has already commented. Writegeist (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding humor, you are not right. The author used the reference to this essay in a context of the very serious discussion, so I have serious reasons to suspect that this essay was conceived as a quite serious law. He did that at least twice, and in both cases the implication was quite clear. In addition, I proposed to add "humor" template to it (which, in my opinion, could help to preserve the essay in the main space), however, the author of the essay objected to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a wiki, and the default rule is that people can write essays and post them in mainspace if they want to. In my opinion, this should be subject to some common-sense exceptions: 1) If then essay is just too far substandard -- poorly written or poorly though out or whatever; 2) if the essay is too far anti-Misplaced Pages, e.g. "The Misplaced Pages sucks, don't use it" as opposed to just critical 3) maybe some other stuff, like if the essay is about a subject just too obscure to be of any real interest, or the material is covered better in another essay, or it is named confusingly (in which case just a rename might be in order), and so forth. This essay doesn't fail any of these to my mind and so it's OK. (FWIW I don't agree with it though, either in the original or later versions). Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW I experienced something similar with my essay WP:HARDCORE. It was userfied (and restored), MfD'd, and then edited by a swarm of hostile editors to deliberately weaken it. I requested mediation which was declined, and the final upshot compromise was the the essay is basically OK but now contains a section "An alternative view" (this currently links to another page). I think this is kind of silly -- editors are always allowed to write essays refuting other essays and put links to them in the "See also" section, but to require an actual section rebutting an essay in the essay seems a bit odd, and I'd hate to see rebuttal sections in the body of WP:OTHERUSERS and so forth, but this is the de facto standard I guess. So perhaps the original editor and editors friendly to his purpose could be given their way (more or less) with the main body of the essay, and editors hostile to the thrust of the essay could be given their way with an "An alternative view" section? Would this help? Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This (especially, the edit-summary) is a good demonstration that the essay we discuss has a great potential for article's ownership.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep No real reason has been given to delete this. The ownership issue doesn't make sense. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor names the essay after themselves and exhibits ownership of the essay. Even if you don't agree with it, I'd say the ownership issue makes sense, and a perfectly good reason has been given to move it to user space, being a single user's essay. - SudoGhost 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy Vanity pages don't belong in mainspace. Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It isnt a vanity page. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The name does suggest that it is. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The author observed a phenomenon and articulated it into a law. Generally in the sciences such laws are named after the observer. --Nug (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also argued that this page should be userfyed. I just think the description "vanity page" is unfair. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

An opinionated essay is not an eponymous law, which at any rate are named after a person, not typically by that person. That is vanity. - SudoGhost 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with acknowledging Collect's keen observation and have the essay so named. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nug, what does "The author observed a phenomenon" means? That Collect observed that those editors who make long and frequent posts are frequently not correct? According to whom they are not correct? According to Collect?! Who he is to make such conclusions? If your interpretation of the "Collect's law" is correct, then this law is a manifestation of Collect's blatant arrogance and vanity, and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I anticipate that this essay may become a tool to attack good faith and knowledgeable users who frequently have to make long and detailed posts in a response to short, repeating, and sometimes ignorant statements. Therefore, this "law" is potentially harmful for Misplaced Pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The more an essay originator resorts to shrill denigration of others' concerns as petty-minded, the more he squeals about WP:GAMING when they add content while advocating deletion or userfication, and the more he yells in boldface, the less convincing will be his denials of WP:OWNership and vanity. Writegeist (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Where it ends up is really a function of the author's preference, as long as they are open to it being edited by others then its fair game for Misplaced Pages Space. While there are some essay's that are so out of line with Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines that they are appropriate only for userspace, that is not the case here. While any "law" of debate can be wrong (sometimes more then it is right), or can be abused, this one seems reasonable enough. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - The fact is that Collect's first law,"The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct.", is an attack at some of our finest thinkers and idea presenters. I've read many a long and winding presentation by SilkTork or MastCell or NewYorkBrad or hundreds of other editors. Any good presenter displays his thought 3 or 4 different ways for different audiences. It guarantees, or at very least, assists understanding. Collect's Law makes light of what some of our best editors do. Should they be chastised for breaking Collect's Law? This is just some cute little ditty that Collect probably stole from Mark Twain or somebody and has twisted it into an his own petty and inaccurate appraisal. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Essays don't need to be correct. If Collect or someone else uses it inappropriately, then that's his problem. Kind of like WP:DICK Gigs (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

One should discriminate between not necessarily correct essays, and the essays that are intrinsically incorrect, and cannot be corrected by virtue of the flaws in the main idea they are based on. Using Nug's terminology, Collect serendipitously established the fact that the users, who most frequently repeat the same idea are the most likely to be wrong, and noone can modify this statement, because this is a law named after Collect, so he is the sole editor who is entitled to decide which modification of his essay is correct and which is not. However, can you explain me, who is least likely to be correct: a user who is trying to explain his viewpoint to his peers using new arguments and sources, or a user who restrict himself with brief "oppose; no consensus for that", and do not bother even to explain his point? According to the "Collect's law" the first one is more likely to be wrong. However, that directly contradicts to our policy! --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep repeating that argument here. I think I should invoke Collect's law. :) Seriously though, I thought about that when I voted, that it's difficult to have an essay like this that isn't userfied. I wouldn't be opposed to userfication. Gigs (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Law now contains a hint that editors should provide a link to this essay when they run out of reasonable arguments, and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's arguments. I have 2 problems with that: 1) the link is self-promoting Collects name, and 2) since when is it civil or collaborative to denigrate another editors argument. Counsel, compare, discuss, cajole....but denigrate? I think the editor in charge of the page (since he has exclusive rights to edit the page) should choose a more congenial word. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Another editor contributed the first part of that, and I added the bit (see edit history) about the denigration strategy--because that's how the so-called law's progenitor utilizes it when he refers other editors to it. (Not quite the epitome of collaborative editing, eh?) Writegeist (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not check the history. Having been witness to many acts of denigration, I logically assumed the hint was Collect's. As you point out, it fit his de-mean-or. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy. Collect WP:OWNs this essay, because nobody else gets to decide what "Collect's Law" is. He's welcome to own essays in his userspace. Additionally, I've recently been informed that essays can be moved out of mainspace if people simply disagree with them, and certainly I disagree with this one. It sounds like a fancy wrapping paper for the argument that 'you cited your sources, so you must be wrong', apparently a waypoint on the path toward 'the article would be better without sources, and best without any useful information at all'. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? The fact is the essay has now been pissed upon by those who disagree with it - and there is no policy saying "I disagree with an essay" is a valid grounds for seeking removal of the essay - in fact, that would run absolutely contrary to Misplaced Pages core principles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Userfy per Wnt. Cheers.--В и к и T 12:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)