text:
WLFP (FM)

WLFP (99.7 MHz, "99.7 The Wolf") is a commercial country music radio station licensed to Memphis, Tennessee, serving the Memphis metropolitan area and much of surrounding West Tennessee, northern Mississippi, and eastern Arkansas. The station is owned by Audacy, Inc. The WLFP studios are located in Memphis' Colonial Acres neighborhood, while the station transmitter resides in northeast Memphis. Besides a standard analog transmission, WLFP is also available online via Audacy.

Founded by The Commercial Appeal in 1947 as WMCF, and known from 1960 to 2023 as WMC-FM, WLFP is notable for being an FM "superpower station," with an output exceeding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) restrictions; of FM stations operating in the FCC's Zone II, WLFP is the most powerful.

History
The Memphis Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Scripps-Howard Newspapers which owned the Memphis Commercial Appeal and founded WMC (790 AM), launched this station as WMCF on May 22, 1947. WMCF was the first FM station established in Memphis and the second in the state of Tennessee, after WSM-FM in Nashville, which began in 1941. From its establishment, WMCF had an output of 515,000 watts; this would be adjusted multiple times before settling at its current power output of 300,000 watts. As the FM adjunct to WMC, WMCF largely simulcast the AM station's programming.

On December 11, 1948, a TV station was added, WMCT. WMC, WMCF and WMCT moved to studios at 1960 Union Avenue in Midtown Memphis in 1959 and celebrated with a broadcast hosted by comedian George Gobel. WMCF changed its call sign to WMC-FM on May 27, 1960; WMCT would become WMC-TV in 1967.

WMC-FM was the first FM radio station in the market, and the first in Tennessee, to play progressive rock, beginning February 6, 1967. Personalities on the station included Greg Hamilton, Ron Michaels, Jon Scott, David Day, and the program director was Mike Powell. Artists included the likes of King Crimson, It's a Beautiful Day, and Quicksilver Messenger Service. The versions of "Light My Fire" by The Doors and "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" by Iron Butterfly (with its extended drum solo) were longer than the one most stations played. In the early 1970s, the station was responsible for regionally breaking many new artists such as David Bowie, Alice Cooper, Lynyrd Skynyrd, ZZ Top and Billy Joel. By 1978, WMC-FM had evolved to a Top 40/CHR format, which would transition to a hot adult contemporary format by September 1992.

Scripps Howard sold WMC, WMC-FM, and WMC-TV to Atlanta businessman Bert Ellis in 1993. Ellis, in turn, sold his station group in the spring quarter of 1996 to a new broadcasting group formed by the Retirement Systems of Alabama, also composed of Aflac's broadcast holdings and Ellis' Raycom Sports operations; this was subsequently named Raycom Media.

Raycom Media sold off WMC and WMC-FM in 2000 to Infinity Broadcasting, a subsidiary of CBS Radio, while keeping WMC-TV. In 2006, Entercom Communications purchased WMC and WMC-FM from CBS Radio; this preceded both companies merging a decade later. WMC and WMC-FM relocated to the Entercom complex in the Moriah Woods Business Park, near the intersection of I-240 and Mount Moriah Road in eastern Memphis.

Many of the station's air personalities worked there for a decade or longer. Most notably, Ron Olson had been the station's morning host since the 1980s, partnered with Steve Conley and Karen Perrin for some of that time, until leaving the station to join co-owned WRVR in January 2018. Tom Prestigiacomo had been the afternoon host since 1979, staying for nearly three decades; Prestigiacomo left in 2007 for rival AC outlet WKIM.

By 2023, WMC-FM's schedule included the morning team of Ryan Anderson and Erin Austin; Jill Bucco in middays; Chris Michaels in afternoons; Chase Daniels in evenings; and Bennett Doyle in overnights. WMC-FM also carried the "Acoustic Sunrise" program hosted by Matthew Reid on weekends.

In April 2023, as part of a memo to staff, Audacy disclosed that the country music programming of WLFP (94.1 FM) would relocate to WMC-FM as "99.7 The Wolf", replacing WMC-FM's hot adult contemporary format (which would continue as a stream exclusively on Audacy's online app), following the sale of the 94.1 license to the Educational Media Foundation. The move of "The Wolf" would take place at 12p.m. on June 12, 2023, following a six-hour farewell program for "FM 100", in which a majority of the past and then-current airstaff voiced their stories about the station. The final song on "FM 100" was "Memphis, I'm Coming Home to You" by The Breaks (a longtime promotional song for the station penned in 1980 by station program director Gary Guthrie), while the first song on "99.7 The Wolf" was "Like I Love Country Music" by Chattanooga native Kane Brown; the first promotional sweeper under the "Wolf" format was a final tribute saluting the "FM 100" format. The WMC-FM call sign would be retired on June 20, when the WLFP call sign moved from 94.1 (which was renamed WMLE); due to a clerical error relating to the FCC database's treatment of stations with three-letter call signs, the initial application for the transfer specified co-owned WZMX in Hartford, Connecticut, as the recipient of the WLFP call sign.

Superpower status
Current FCC restrictions were passed in 1962 and mandate a maximum 100,000 watts across most of the country on the FM band, with most of the Northeast and much of California limited to 50,000 watts. WLFP is calculated to exceed power restrictions by 4.6 decibels. However, WLFP was grandfathered at the high power since it went on the air before the restrictions began.

title: WLFP (FM)


text: Template:Non-free web screenshot

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Non-free web screenshot


text: Category:Screenshots of web pages

title: Category:Screenshots of web pages


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Method engineering

project page or encyclopedic article?
I'm not sure this is a proper Wikipedia article. I'm sure the MEE is a good project for Wikipedia but a page such as User:YourUsername/Method Engineering Encyclopedia would be more appropriate. The article page should be informative/encyclopedic. Correct me if I'm wrong. --moyogo
 * I agree with you. This information should be on a user-page, not an encyclopedia page. Victor Gijsbers 07:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be here at all. Wikipedia is not a wiki hosting service. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not an encyclopaedia article about a Method Engineering Encyclopaedia. It's a page for a project, entitled "Method Engineering".  It does not belong in the main article namespace. I'm going to be bold. Uncle G 23:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards
And for goodness sake, please suggest your students read the Tutorial so they know not to make cut&paste page moves, like was done from ISPL to Information Services Procurement Library, because it separates the page history from the content, and the Talk page, if one was created (I'll go merge the histories of those articles after I save this note--please let me know if any others need to be fixed); that articles should not start with headings (eg ); that section headers should be mostly lowercase, unless they include proper nouns; and the title of the article should be included in the intro, in bold text. Also, Uploading images/Image use policy--JPG (pictures) or PNG (diagrams), please, not GIF; and Image copyright tags--images may be deleted if their copyright status is unknown. Also, no single person "owns" Wikipedia articles, so 'credits' (eg "This article is currently under construction by [person's name]) and 'signatures' (eg Niteowlneils 17:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) are not appropriate in articles. Since "Freeband Business Blueprint" gets only 4 google hits, only 1 of which is in English, it seems like Freeband Business Blueprint is either mistitled, or original research, which Wikipedia articles should not be. Niteowlneils 17:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Many related articles are lacking proper intros and wikilinks--I recommend also viewing the Annotated article for style ideas. Niteowlneils 18:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Though Niteownlneils is quite correct; I would like say that I for one very much appreciate you using Wikipedia for your project. Some of the content that has been added has been very good. Wikipedia could certainly do with an improvement to its project management articles. If you have any questions about producing this project within Wikipedia, please free to write them here and you will receive replies.

 * I have created the category of method engineering to keep track of the articles that are produced. See bottom of the page:ChrisG 12:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

category:method engineering

Project contributors?

 * User:Jorrit
 * User:Wesleyidmaur
 * User:Jaapdt
 * User:Lichen0426
 * User:Pumpkincat (probably also )
 * User:Aasch
 * User:Siebevanschalkwijk
 * User:Ivs
 * User:Okok- Fagan Inspection

(guessing from various page histories, in no particular order) Niteowlneils 18:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Contribs of likely participant
 * Contribs of another possible anon participant

Wikipedia standards
Hello everybody. Questions have arisen (see here and here) as to the conformity of this project's articles with key Wikipedia policies, such as Content that fails to conform to these policies may be proposed for deletion by anyone as per the deletion policy. However, it appears that this project is producing high-quality bona fide content which could (and does already) contribute substantially to the encyclopedia and should thus be saved from deletion. For this reason, I suggest that the project's participants:
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * Only verifiable information
 * Cite reliable sources
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to manual

 * 1) Read up on Wikipedia policies, particularly the ones cited above, as well as the five pillars of Wikipedia.
 * 2) Read some featured articles and the Manual of Style to get a feel for how scientific content is most suitably displayed on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Work on improving the articles according to the policies, in particular by:
 * 4) to prevent WP:OR and WP:POV, making sure that what you are talking about is the state of the art in a notable, accepted branch of your science and not your synthesis of various proposals or even your own ideas and methods,
 * 5) citing sources, e.g. using WP:FOOTNOTEs,
 * 6) moving content that will always be "how-to", e.g. how to manage this or that business process, to Wikibooks, a sister project suitable for such content.

Best regards, Sandstein 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this is the best place?

 * 1) Would all people from Utrecht who contribute, please mark their articles (on the talk page or edit summary) with a link to this project page? That will greatly help in enabling us to apply a consistent policy to these articles.
 * 2) Having said that, I strongly recommend that you review whether this is the right place for your project. You describe yourselves as researchers and, time and time again it has been stated no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. I think you might be happier creating your own Wiki on a server at the University of Utrecht. -- RHaworth 10:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now started Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. I hope it will receive plenty of attention so that we can obtain a clear consensus on this project. -- RHaworth 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cent
There is now a centralized discussion covering the question of this project and any related pages. Please comment. John Reid 13:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox engineer
Infobox engineer has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


text:
Mors (island)

Mors or Morsø (the latter more formal) is an island in the shallow sound called Limfjorden within Denmark's Jutland peninsula. It has an area of 367.3 km2 and as of 1 January 2019, it had a population of 20,373. The main town on the island is called Nykøbing Mors. Geologically Mors is unique. Like the neighbouring island of Fur, it is known for its deposits of diatomite, locally known as 'moler' (mo-clay).

Jesperhus Flower Park
The largest flower park in the Nordic countries, Jesperhus, is situated in Legind Bjerge to the south west of Nykøbing. The park contains wide range of plants, including cacti, palms, a variety of roses and a lot of other colourful flowers. The park also has a butterfly reserve, aquarium, aviary, terrarium and hatching center.

Fossil and Mo-clay Museum
The Fossil and Mo-clay Museum (Fossil- og Molermuseet), located in northern Mors, boasts the largest collection of moler (diatomite) fossils in Denmark and tells the story of moler geology, the natural history of the island, and the relationship between the Danish people and moler including its manufacturing properties. The fossils include imprints of birds, fish, turtles, plants and insects found in the Fur Formation on Mors.

Hanklit
Hanklit is situated on the northern coast of the island and is a beautiful cliff face and tourist attraction. The cliff is c. 60 metres high and has several moler deposits. Several people search the cliff face for plant and animal fossils and there are also paragliders who use the nearby hills of Salgerhøj for takeoff.

Shellfish
Mors is known for its shellfish industries; specifically mussel and oyster fisheries and aquaculture. The Danish Shellfish Center (Dansk Skaldyrcenter), part of the Technical University of Denmark, is a research and dissemination center for marine science and aquaculture. The Danish Shellfish Festival takes place in Nykøbing Mors every year in June, celebrating the shellfish industries and Limfjorden traditions.

Transportation
There is a bridge link to the island from Salling via the Sallingsund Bridge on the southeastern side of Mors, and another from Thy via the Vilsund Bridge on the northwestern side of the island. In addition to these two bridges, there are also ferry links to Thy from southwest Mors and from the north of the island. There is also a small airfield called "Morsø" with ICAO EKNM.

History
During the Jutland Peasant rebellion of 1441, Christopher of Bavaria, King of Denmark, approached the rebel camp at Husby Hole near St Jørgen's Hill in northern Jutland and sent word that anyone who left the camp and went home would not be punished for rebellion. The men from the island of Mors as well as those from Thisted left, for which they were afterwards called cowards and traitors.

Notable people

 * Peter Rochegune Munch (born 1870 in Redsted – 1948) was a leading historian and politician
 * Aksel Sandemose (born 1899 in Nykøbing Mors) was a writer and journalist, famous for popularizing the Law of Jante
 * Frode Jakobsen (born 1906 in Østre Jølby – 1997) a Danish author and politician
 * Knud Sørensen (born 1928) a writer, poet and novelist; settled on Mors a surveyor in 1958
 * Arne Rolighed (born 1947 in Flade) a politician, who served as minister of health 2000–2001.
 * Asbjørn Riis (born 1957 in V. Hvidbjerg) a professional wrestler, actor and TV personality.
 * Inger Støjberg (born 1973 in Hjerk, Salling) politician, former Danish Minister for Immigration, Integration and Housing, since 2022 leader of the political party Danmarksdemokraterne (Denmark Democrats).

Attractions

 * Dueholm Monastery
 * Højriis Castle
 * Jesperhus Resort
 * Moler Museum
 * Danish Støberimuseum
 * Danish Shellfish Center

title: Mors (island)


text:
User talk:Limeheadnyc/Archive1

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 23:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Tony, I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts at the clitoris page. It seems like you're often the only one there with any common sense. I'm getting a bit jaded with the process, because I suspect many of the antis are simply trolling and not in search of any actual compromise or conflict resolution. I try to keep voicing my pro-photo position just so it doesn't get lost in the ridiculous milieu, and that position would be lost without you. Timbo 03:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Compliments of the season! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC
If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル   ₪  04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hey マイケル, I'm terribly sorry I didn't get to support you; I was on holiday until today. The RfC seems to be deleted, but if I can help anywhere else, feel free to drop me a note. Thanks, Timbo 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carson and pussy
Hiya, IB3K here. here's that article about the sadly apocryphal Carson interview. Both Zsa Zsa Gabor and Johnny deny the interview ever took place. Iceberg3k 12:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio images
Hi, I noticed that selfsuck.jpg was removed from Autofellatio and replaced with the old picture. Now the original picture's listing on IfD had been removed and the image is still there. Does that mean it survived IfD or is it about to be deleted? Also could you please vote on selfsuck? I think it would be handy to have around as a backup, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's more indecent than autofellatio.jpg. Given the subject, it might be good to have a spare handy just in case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Sometimes I'll sign and sometimes I won't...--MONGO 12:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)MONGO

Please stop reverting on TFD
If you'll notice, in my last edit to the page I created a separate entry for the template. Vacuum c 14:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some digging to find out what, in fact, happened. Here's how I understand what's going on with this headache. So there you have it. Instead of being deleted now, we'll have to wait another week to remove Template:Content dispute. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Raul654 adds Template:Enduring single-issue dispute to TfD (01:49, 21 Jan 2005).
 * 2) Frazzydee adds Template:Content dispute to the Template:Enduring single-issue dispute section (21:51, 22 Jan 2005) because "it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, go ahead and move it there. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
 * 3) *At that point, the votes for Template:Enduring single-issue dispute were as follows:
 * A nonsensical semi-permanent dispute tag. →Raul654 05:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The goal is to fix the article, not load it up with ugly tags. Rhobite 05:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dispute isn't going away any time soon: in the mean time, people ought to know what's going on, like any dispute tag. (Note: the article in question is clitoris, and the issue is whether the "vulva image" should be there.) —Ashley Y 05:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Delete, if there's an NPOV issue, stick an NPOV tag on it. Incidentally, the enduring single issue at Clitoris appears to be whether or not to have an enduring single issue tag on it. Odd, that. --fvw* 03:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vacuum tc 15:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 15:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Jirate 15:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Dan | Talk 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) *I'm just about as positive as I've ever been about anything that these votes would not change for Template:Content dispute. They have the same content. But keep reading on.
 * 2) A number of votes follow.
 * 3) Vacuum removes Template:Content Dispute from TfD (15:27, 24 Jan 2005) with the misleading edit summary: "the templates are different. undo grouping." In fact, Vacuum removed the template from VfD entirely.
 * 4) Vacuum then removes the tag  from Template:Content Dispute (15:30, 24 Jan 2005).
 * 5) After my reversion of TfD, Vacuum reverts again (15:38, 24 Jan 2005) with the same logic. I revert for the second time because it's an instance of an author removing his/her work from TfD before voting completes.
 * 6) Vacuum finally moves his/her template to another section (16:51, 28 Jan 2005).
 * 7) Netoholic votes delete (18:27, 28 Jan 2005).
 * 8) I reinstate the grouping  (23:53, 28 Jan 2005) because the templates are, in fact, almost exactly the same. I forget, however, to delete the separate section for Template:Content dispute.
 * 9) Vacuum took out the grouping and added a second separate section for Template:Content dispute (15:36, 29 Jan 2005).
 * 10) MikeX voted delete (15:53, 29 Jan 2005) and then deleted the duplicate section  (15:55, 29 Jan 2005).
 * 11) Frazzydee, added yet another section for Template:Content dispute (16:46, 29 Jan 2005).
 * 12) Vacuum votes keep in this duplicate section (17:05, 29 Jan 2005).
 * 13) Vacuum then deletes the duplicate section, along with Frazzydee's vote and comments (18:15, 29 Jan 2005).
 * 14) I just voted to delete and added Frazzydee's deleted vote and comments to the section (22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Thanks
Thanks for watching the stuff over at WP:TFD. I'm shock that vacuum deleted the entire section, including my vote. Thumbs up for catching that! Anyways, I just wanted to say wikithanks for guarding that, see you around! -Frazzydee|✍ 23:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yngwie
''I agree with you that Yngwie is pretentious, cheesy, and I've heard from friends of friends in the business that he's quite mean and annoying. I think it was Ty Tabor (of King's X fame) who was practicing in a rehearsal studio with his band next to Yngwie and his band one time in the early 90s. Yngwie wanders into Tabor's room (still playing, mind you, via wireless) and starts wailing to show how cool he is. Then he hands his guitar to Tabor, daring him to repeat what Yngwie just played. Tabor picks up the axe and fumbles with the scalloped fret board and super-light strings, finally saying something to the effect of "I can't, man." Yngwie lets out a haughty chuckle and walks back to his band, then proceeds to joke loudly about how lame Tabor is to the rest of his bandmates. Classic Yngwie - such a tool, yet he'll never know that he's anything less than a messiah.''

''Personality aside, though ... as well as cheesiness of his music ... I' definitely respect Yngwie for his discipline. It's been very sad for me to listen to the decline of the solo as an integral part of a song. I think there's a synthesis that needs to take place in order to make some great strides in the rock arena; that is, a synthesis between chops and vibe, for lack of better terms. Chops are, after all, possibilities. Capabilities. If you don't have the chops, you're severely limited in terms of your sonic capabilities. That's why so much nu-metal guitarring sounds manufactured, flat, and unoriginal. What happened a lot in the 80s, I think, is people focused so much on chops that they forgot their purpose. That's why there's so much pretention, such a "look what I can do" attitude.''

I think Yngwies an ass who doesnt make good music (except his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens, that was good). If you dont make good music, I will never give a shit about how well you can sing or play your 'musical instrument' or ax as some metal fans call it.

And just because you walk into a room and play some random notes and ask someone to play what you just played by ear without any preparation doesnt mean you are good. You know the notes exactly and could of been rehearsing them for months. Doing that just means you got a hell of an inferiority complex. Or maybe just a narcissist.

Until Yngwie starts writing some good music I wont care about him. Ill stick with Iced Earth/Black Sabbath and when I'm stoned on DXM, Stratovarius.

And your little cliche about arguing about nu-metal guitaring being unoriginal and manufactured, I agree. I dont see the metal world sucumming to shit. There has always been horrable commercialized music disguising itsself as real talent. Nu-metal is just the crap that was diguised as good metal that came along after hair metal and grunge. Nothing new. Some assholes found a way to make guitaring harsh without requiring talent and exploited that.

So I close this because just like my last rant it was pointless and a waste of time. Though you are a huge improvement over the last Yngwie fan I argued with. You havent resorted to name calling or saying things like "You dont know shit about music." "Yngwie ownz Kirk Hammet."

--Arm

 * Whoa, dude. I didn't mean to argue with you. Haha, I was actually agreeing, or so I thought. My little anecdote was meant to illustrate how Yngwie is, in fact, a huge "ass." And I do agree that his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens was quite good, although his other music is quite cheesy. I fancy myself a musician, and I love metal, so I tend to ramble on about such things.

 * Perhaps I offended you about nu-metal? I don't mean to categorically belittle it. I love System of a Down, Deftones, and a bunch of other supposed nu-metal acts. Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  17:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Nah no offense taken. And I hardly ever listen to nu-metal. Now once Yngwie starts writing some songs with a tune to them then maybe ill give him a listen. He can have Tim Owens since his high-pitched wailing is annoying and Jon Schaffer can find a better vocalist elsewhere. I like Matt Maggard Myself. --Arm

Tag
Frankly I'm sick of this whole damn edit war myself, however I think a tag acceptable for now...however, I think a compromise should be achived.--198 05:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I think the tag is pretty ugly, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves. There is a tag on top of the talk page.... Not good enough? Regards, T IMBO  ( T A L K )  05:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

iufid
Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from WP:TFD, and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

 * I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to Timbo's talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Perhaps the listing was premature, but I hardly find it trollish. As far as good faith: perhaps he thinks he's working in good faith, but his flurry of POV creations might lead one to think otherwise. From a person who created Category:Possibly offensive images, IUFID seems like just another way to revamp wikipedia into my-pov-pedia. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  20:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note, BTW! T IMBO  ( T A L K )  20:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus
...has gracefully conceded on his offensive image template, by changing his own vote to delete. He says that he is putting all of his efforts into Iufid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well that's a relief. Thanks for the update. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  02:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Linking now" on Talk:Autofellatio
Sorry about removing that section. I was trying to make a comment, but got into like 3 edit conflicts, and somehow I removed it after Davenbelle added it. >_< It's back in place now, but I just wanted to explain what happened with my edits. —Mar·ka·ci: 2005-02-10 05:41 Z

 * Haha no problem, I figured as much. I got into a bunch of edit conflicts at the same time. Cheers, T IMBO  ( T A L K )  05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Timbo, could you watch Cantus on the talk page? He keeps trying to insert a notice to the effect that his poll nullifies the poll on whether to have a deadline. I keep removing it. I would appreciate it if you could help to keep that false and misleading statement off the page as it could affect the perceptions of voters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Tony. I think you're more knowledgeable than I of Wikipedia's policies/procedures etc., so I was wondering where you think a lasting decision could come from. Consensus/supermajority seems like something to shoot for, but there is the likely possibility (as mentioned on the talk page) that we won't ever have that. Edit warring until people get tired of it seems inadequate, although perhaps it'll have to do. Cheers, T IMBO  ( T A L K )  19:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In the end the resolution will come when people who oppose either one or both of the current options unite and accept a new one. I don't think it's sensible to think of the period after an unsuccessful survey as a period of edit wars--in fact nobody who engages in protracted edit warring will win any respect if it's clear that their favored option does not have consensus.

 * I foresee a few imaginative edits along the lines of different adapted versions of the current picture as a thumbnail with a link to the current picture, unbowdlerized, beneath it. I expressed distaste for the idea of pixellizing the glans, but I would be prepared to swallow my dislike in the interests of obtaining a consensus.

 * If there was a fairly popular version like this (which would of course end up being reverted by die-hards on either side) then I'd propose it for another poll in the hope that we'd find common ground with those link-ists who object specifically to the glans (or some larger area of the penis, perhaps) being displayed.

 * The idea is to present graded options (more or less of the "obscene" areas displayed without pixellization, whether to display the testes without pixellization, the shaft, etc) and permit people to vote for more than one option. This would be staged as a "beauty contest" to have only one winner and to be successful only if the winner gets the votes of over 70%.

 * Well this is my view of the way ahead. What do you think? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm I'll have to think about that. On the one hand, I'd hate to have any kind of pixellating because I think it looks unprofessional, and in this case it could reduce the educational content of the picture. I'd have to see a specific pic though. On the other hand, I think working toward consensus is important, and these are certainly alternatives whose community support might be enough to resolve the disputes for the time being.

 * Maybe we could reduce the size of the image a bit? Not ridiculously small, but small enough so that a penis-phobe won't go berserk when they see it.

 * In any case, I think the different options are a good idea. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: KiwiLyrics
Hello, and thanks for the comment. Copyrights are an issue at KiwiLyrics...We will take down any content if the copyright owner requests it be done, but a lot of artists don't mind or even encourage lyrics sites to post their songs. - user:defunkt 09:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio link
Trying to see if we can get that link back. Feel free to give it a go and we'll see who supports and who opposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The image at clitoris
Thanks for your message. You are more or less right about Jimbo's action at autofellatio, I think, but he was quite clear that he didn't approve of the image and thought it should be removed until there was a compromise. I've asked for the same, Timbo. We could link the image until the problem is resolved.

I don't agree that the minority must concede, Timbo. I think NPOV means, clearly, that all views must be included, not that the majority must prevail. We have been over this enough times. You haven't yet convinced me that "consensus" means "the majority wins" and I'm not at all convinced that was the intention of Wikipedia, nor do I want to see that principle prevail. I believe fiercely in inclusivity in this project. I do not agree that polls are a good means to create a consensus. Quite the opposite. They destroy any attempt to find one. The polls confirmed that there is a majority for keeping the image, Timbo, but you ought not to ignore that they also showed that there is some dissent. You would be kidding yourself if you did not think there was.

From my POV, I don't see the big deal in linking the image. You can still view it if you wish to, but those that do not know that there will be images that are illegal in many places and, at the very least, considered objectionable in others, will not be upset. Why is it such a bad thing that we should show some concern not to upset readers? It doesn't mean we agree with them. I have been quite clear, Timbo, that I am not a prude, am not offended by the images in question and do not have any desire to have a censored Wikipedia. But the hardliners have opposed all means even to allow the page to be displayed without the picture, any warning and any way to prevent upset. It seems to me that they are determined to push their POV and feel justified because they have a majority.

But look, Timbo, a majority of people on this planet believe there is a God of some kind. Would we want our page on God to suggest that it's a fact there is one? Wikipedia does not simply reflect the majority, white, liberal view. I'm proud that it doesn't. I will continue to argue that it shouldn't. Dr Zen 08:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I am proactive, Timbo. I am talking to you. I am willing to discuss the whole issue. The edits keep the issue alive. They're no big deal to revert. I don't insult anyone.

But I will not be running any polls. I know who has the majority. But I also know that there is dissent. Dr Zen 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, compromise isn't possible with those who will not compromise and consensus is impossible with those who don't want it. It's fruitless talking with you, Timbo, because you are so convinced of your rightness and so aware that you have the numbers (here) that you will not consider that there even are other views you should accommodate. Dr Zen 21:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for polls, a quarter voted for a disclaimer. That's a lot of dissent. the link vote was for a link to a different diagram not to the photo, but even so, 13% voted against that. Not comparable. The next attempt at a poll collapsed because the hardliners could not find a wording that worked for them. Others have expressed dissent elsewhere. A lot of the dissent has been very fierce. I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored.

We went a long way to creating consensus on a images on/off fork but that collapsed, largely because Tony Sidaway refused to allow a warning, which would render the fork useless, of course. This was a considerable compromise on both sides and is still worth exploring.

We discussed the link and had a quasi poll about that. There was nothing like accord on the issue. The discussion broke down because a hardliner called those who want to accommodate all our readers the "jack ass faction".

I'll quote myself, Timbo: "The point of Wikipedia is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Wikipedia." This is the point you and I need to discuss. You need to convince me that either Wikipedia's majority should not take care of its minority, or that the minority is sufficiently insignificant that it need not be considered.Dr Zen 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am taking your point, Timbo. I'm glad that you at least, despite your firm stand, believe that compromise is not impossible. I am not "edit warring" on my own though. It takes two sides to make a war. We had a compromise solution that most of the people discussing the page were happy to have in place temporarily, but people who were not involved in discussions opposed it. I guess I feel that the "war" began there.

It is going to be the case on Wikipedia that if there are two sides that are implacably opposed on any issue, and they will not enter negotiations in good faith, they will each be left with a course of editing the article to make it better by their own lights, and that will inevitably mean an edit war. You know that I feel that suggesting that the article is "stable" if no one edit wars over it is not particularly good faith. The opposition has not gone away just because it is not editing the page! Of course, it doesn't progress the discussion to remove the image. I'm not stupid. But if the "other side" will not discuss a compromise, because they form a majority -- something I simply do not think is within the spirit of Wikipedia, even if it has become more and more the de facto means of operation here -- what is left to a dissenter? The other parties in the edit war, Timbo, I should remind you, have not even been involved in the discussions, or when they have, have shown no willingness at all to consider compromise. There can only be a dialogue when both sides are talking! Otherwise, yes, it's just the same old stuff over and over.

I do believe a compromise should be possible. Personally, I feel linking the image should be explored, or having the option to turn the images off as Cool Hand Luke suggested. I think the opposition to this is particularly unfounded. We all agreed that the default would be images on (although of course they would need to be visible only on scrolling down). We differed over the wording but I don't think that was irresolvable. I know some implacably opposed any compromise, Timbo, but surely, if those who are willing find one, and then put it on the page, those who are not are exposed as POV pushers?

As far as placement in the article is concerned, this can only really be a solution if it is indicated that there is a picture! I think a link does this best of all. The picture is there. It is available to be seen. But it doesn't confront children or those offended by that kind of thing.

The discussion about whether children should be confronted by this kind of thing, which many of the opponents of compromise reiterate, is not actually germane to our discussion. Yes, I agree that it's a bad thing that some people think vulvas are offensive, but the point is that they do. NPOV says include all views. That means include all views including the ones you don't personally agree with. I've mentioned enough times that my personal view is that there is nothing wrong with the picture.

What would be useful, Timbo, would be for you to address first of all the issue of whether you are genuinely prepared to include the other views to your own? I firmly believe you are. I do not believe some of the others are at all, but you at least seem willing to try to find a way.

Next, it would be useful to discuss alternatives in terms of how they include all views and not how the majority might make concessions. This has been the problem in discussing this, I think. People say "linking is censorship and I'm against censorship" and I say "no, it's not censorship because, look, the picture is still there, it's simply caring for the sensitivities, however misguided, of some of our readers". We should be looking at how those views are reconciled (I think they can be) rather than how they can be more firmly entrenched.

Finally, anyone trying to find a compromise has to shit or get off the pot. You have to be able to say, there is no compromise possible (I think this is very rarely the case in Wikipedia because disputes are usually over expressions of views and there is usually a middle course that nods to both), or that this is a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, we'll make it, and then allow the hardliners to stand outside of, if not a consensus, then at least a compromise that has involved considered discussion. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Again
Hi again Tim, I really do think that picture is a pornographic, I will admit on the clitoris article I was over-reacting but I don't feel that way in this case.--198 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise that you do not feel that linking is possible because you think it conveys a negative message. I tend to agree with Samboy, who suggested that the message it conveys is quite neutral: "We know some are offended." and not negative: "We think vulvas can be offensive."

In any case, I am suggesting that we do legitimate that POV. Suggesting that it should not be recognised is exactly what I feel makes you a hardliner! We ought to try to include all POVs, not simply the one we personally endorse.

Recognition of the value of the other POV in no way endorses it. By saying, yes, we know some people feel this way, we in no way agree that they are right to. This is exactly my position. I feel the POV that I am wanting included is entirely unhealthy and close to unacceptable.

But I would want holocaust denial included in an article on the holocaust, Timbo, even though I find it totally unacceptable, because I believe that the principle of NPOV is what sets us apart (and I'm going to return to it when I discuss what is "encyclopaedic").

As for inclusion/disinclusion, I do see your point that you feel linking out of the page is not including the image. I don't agree, because the material is there and is available to readers, but I understand the POV. I thought that the page fork would be the best solution to that problem. I really can't understand the objections to it as anything other than "we get our way and you can just fuck off", although I do understand the concerns over how to word a link.

But Timbo, this is why I say the first point that must be passed is an agreement that the views contrary to yours should be recognised. If we can agree that we should be inclusive then we are discussing how on each point, not whether. This is where the heatedness has come from, I think, on the talkpage. The anti-imagists, if you like, are frustrated because they don't feel the pros are willing to even begin to compromise and have taken the attitude that anything they give is a (grudging) concession. This is very much fuelled by comments like "the article is stable, why should be bother talking about it?". Well, the issue was not actually resolved and didn't go away! But once we've agreed we want to include all, how is easier.

On the question of encyclopaedic merit, Timbo, I think you have simply abstracted the dispute. Those who oppose the image don't think it has "encyclopaedic merit" because they do not believe it should be in an encyclopaedia. You want to define "encyclopaedic" entirely functionally, and I understand that desire, but it ignores other ways of defining "encyclopaedic" (the exact same problem happens in VfD, where those who want to trim Wikipedia claim that what they want cut is not "encyclopaedic" because their definition of "encyclopaedia" is not "contains all knowledge" but "contains what I think an encyclopaedia should contain"). IOW, Timbo, I don't see the point of bickering over what encyclopaedias should or shouldn't contain as a route to resolving the issue.

What I do think is that a roadmap that looks like this is a way forward:

1/ Are you willing to recognise views you do not yourself hold and try to include them? Do you agree that this is in fact what NPOV means in a broader sense? 2/ If yes, are you willing to explore ways to make this happen in regards to this page? (IOW, are you willing to compromise because you accept point one, not because you feel the other side has any particular merit? Once I had asked myself this question, I realised I could not dogmatically support a photo and claim to be supporting the NPOV policy at the same time.) 3/ What ways are open? I suggest the possibilities are: a link, a fork, a small picture at the bottom of the article with a strongly worded disclaimer. You may have others in mind, and they could be put on the table. 4/ What are the objections of each side to each way of resolving the POVs? 5/ Can the objections be answered reasonably in the spirit of trying to find a compromise? 6/ Voila!

As it happens, I feel that at least a group of editors were discussing ways (without having accepted that they should compromise), and that came to nothing. I think it came to nothing because of a lack of commitment from both sides to pass the first couple of hurdles.

Just to discuss for a moment your point about spiders, Tim. If this were Britannica, we would not be having this discussion. There would be no clitoris pic and the spider pic would be there. But this isn't. It's not a regular encyclopaedia.

I think that if we can reasonably assume that a picture of a spider will offend or upset readers, we should link it too. What is lost by it? The picture is still there but now arachnophobes need not fear the article! Everyone is included.

When you say the pictures add to the article, well, they add for some but not for others. They don't add anything for you. They wouldn't add anything for my friend S, who cannot look at pictures of, well snakes actually, not spiders without feeling physically ill.

And yes, here is where the misunderstanding is, precisely. Your POV is that the spider photos don't need taking down on your account. But Wikipedia is about all accounts and what is right for all. No? Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You made a very interesting point. I think an equally strong one would be to say "what if someone said the word 'Jew' was objectionable?"

I think that if we are going to pursue that line of discussion, I should say that I think the objector can be asked to cite their sources, just as they can for any other issue. Is "Jew" objectionable to many? Can he/she show many objecting? You see my point. I don't think there is any real case that the view we're discussing is not held legitimately by many of our readers, and some of our editors.

It is very difficult, though, because we wouldn't want to be in the business of saying "this view is legitimate, this one not". NPOV does not allow that. It's not about judgment, is it?

That's why I say point one on any roadmap has to be "should the views in question be recognised?" If the view is that the clitoris picture should entirely be excluded, we have a problem that is very difficult to resolve. We might agree that both views are legitimate, and that one has the advantage of being held by the majority of editors (although I doubt it is held by the majority of the intended audience, which, if I quote Jimbo correctly, is the whole world) and yet, if neither will compromise, one view must be ignored.

In the case of the white supremacists, you need to return to the principle. Should they be offended and upset because of the views they hold? (Well yes, at every turn they should, but you take my point here.) If the answer is yes, what ground is there? If we are reduced to saying, because I don't like their view, we're really working in a POV way.

I'll await your further response, when you've slept on it ;-) before saying anything else.

What does interest me, though, is whether you feel that your objection to a link would necessarily hold against a fork? Dr Zen 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Limeheadnyc/Archive1


text: Template:Hinduism-stub

title: Template:Hinduism-stub


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu

Where's the evidence?
Out of interest, where is the evidence that this "dispute" was attempted to be resolved amicably? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear. I wrote that "Ford stated that Ta bu shi da yu was exceeding his authority as an administrator, and Ta bu shi da yu refused to relent. Then Simetrical posted evidence from Wikipedia policy (see Applicable policies above) that he said Ta bu shi da yu was violating; Ta bu shi da yu stated that he wasn't violating policy." There we have Ford protesting, and you refusing to budge; then me protesting, and you refusing to budge. We're supposed to try resolving disputes with the other user first, and we did try. Since no one on either side changed their minds, I brought it to an RFC.

But I admit that maybe I really should have tried a bit harder before bringing it here. I'm now a bit sorry for that, but I can't rewrite history. Nevertheless, there's no reason that I see we can't still resolve this by discussion. So let's try. According to Protection policy, admins should not protect pages they are "involved in an edit dispute over", correct? And aren't you presently involved in an edit dispute over at 2004, as to whether the NPOV tag should be kept? How would protecting the page not violate the rule? —Simetrical (talk) 01:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I'm not involved in the dispute. I have carefully read the talk page, and used my discretion as an administrator to remove the NPOV tag and force some compromise here. As you have just placed the NPOV tag back I've removed it and protected the page, as I said I would. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ford and I consider that the NPOV tag belongs there, and you disagree. Why isn't that a dispute? —Simetrical (talk) 01:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And even if you're not involved, you've shown favoritism as to which version you chose to protect. This is against the protection policy as well. —Simetrical (talk) 01:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I didn't. I just removed the NPOV tag of the last edit. I have not made any edits to existing content. If you don't like the content, there are ways of compromising. I haven't seen you do any of these things yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've come back to whether there's an edit dispute. Ford and I believe the NPOV tag belongs on the page; you disagree. You have not yet explained how this is not a dispute. —Simetrical (talk) 01:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you have not attempted to compromise. There is a viable option: split the page into multiple subarticles. Do this and the NPOV dispute is resolved. It's not hard. As it is, there is a standoff at the moment. Fix the problem. Don't just slap an NPOV tag back on the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For a year page? That would be annoying. And the goal is for people to read it. --YixilTesiphon 02:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior is what's in question here, not ours. If you think there's an applicable policy that we've violated, start up another RFC. Here is where we discuss your behavior and this RFC.

You still haven't said how the NPOV tag question doesn't qualify as an edit dispute. —Simetrical (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where're the violations?
What actions did Ta bu actually perform that were outside of his authority? silsor 22:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

He didn't, strictly speaking, do anything outside his authority until just now—he merely threatened to. Now he has protected a page to resolve an edit dispute that he was involved in, in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's protection policy. He also showed favoritism as to which version he protected, which is against the policy as well. —Simetrical (talk) 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what edit dispute I'm involved in. I have nothing to do with any content dispute, I am merely trying to get that NPOV tag out of the article and force a compromise from battling editors. That is not a content dispute. If you could tell me which text in the article (apart from the NPOV tag, which is really not content) I would appreciate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we may as well keep our discussion to one part of the page, rather than saying the same things in two different parts. I'll continue this above. —Simetrical (talk) 01:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read carefully
There is an obvious tendency in the comments regarding this dispute to let the issue be obscured. The issue is not Ta bu shi da yu’s editorial judgement, which so many seem to agree with. The issue is Ta bu shi da yu’s abuse of administrator power to enforce editorial judgement.

Protection policy provides for only three cases where an administrator may temporarily protect a page. None of those cases obtains here. When faced with the policy, Ta bu shi da yu chose, despite having previously offered unrelated reasons, to justify the protection of the page with this policy: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.  Ta bu shi da yu has provided no evidence of any edit war, or of any request for protection. The last edit on the issue of the NPOV tag was, in fact, a compromise: Astrotrain exchanged the NPOV tag, which Astrotrain had been trying to remove altogether, for the long NPOV tag. That edit took place on January 29. To claim, two full weeks later, that there was an edit war in need of a cool-down period is simply false.

As the evidence from Talk:2004 shows, Ta bu shi da yu was proposing an editorial solution to what Ta bu shi da yu saw as an editorial problem. Ta bu shi da yu then threatened to enforce that solution, and, should anyone edit in contradiction to this solution, to protect the page in the form that Ta bu shi da yu preferred. This is a clear violation of instructions to administrators regarding page protection: Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page).

Let us focus on what actually happened. Ta bu shi da yu made an editorial change, accompanied by a threat to enforce this using adminstrator power. In a talk-page edit summary, Ta bu shi da yu offered an editorial opinion to back up the change. After arguing against this change and especially against this potential use of administrator power, Simetrical undid the change — a day and a half later. Within six minutes, Ta bu shi da yu had reverted to Ta bu shi da yu’s own preferred version of the page, and protected it.

If the presence or absence of the NPOV tag is not substantive, then no one should be in a hurry to change it. The tag is a statement to our readers that something in the page is under dispute, and a warning to read the page with caution. To remove the tag, as Ta bu shi da yu did, is indeed a substantive edit to the article. Ta bu shi da yu has an opinion on how the article should look, has edited the article in support of that opinion, and used administrator power to stop anyone from revising that edit.

Talk:2004 clearly shows a great deal of discussion about the content of the article, and the neutrality of that content. From one issue to the next, there have been ad-hoc coalitions in support and opposed. This request for comment is not about the content of the article; it is not the dispute between me (and others) and Astrotrain (and others) about the content of the article, or its neutrality. This request for comment is about the extent of administrator power. There is a policy on page protection. Ta bu shi da yu has violated that policy. Those who are using this request for comment as an opportunity to dismiss me and my kind for our silliness are being shortsighted. They are allowing an administrator to abuse what is supposed to be a limited power in order to score points off of someone with whom they disagree. As I said on Talk:2004, if others encourage this abuse of power on the shortsighted grounds that they agree with Ta bu shi da yu’s editorial judgement and disagree with mine, we may as well abandon all notion of policy, or of administrators as servants of the community, not masters.

Out of respect, please respond to these points below, not within the text above. To preserve the flow of my own argument, I will move any comments which are inserted.— Ford 12:34, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

 * Policy is sometimes made by editors and by administrators. To me it looks as if this administrator acted appropriately to break up a ridiculously trivial squabble that was damaging an important page.  It could well be that in future other administrators will feel empowered to act in this way, and their actions will then be judged on a case-by-case basis, as will this one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Policy is made by Wikipedians as a whole. Administrators are Wikipedians, and therefore they have just as much right as anyone to vote on policy.  They do not have any more right than anyone.  As the Administrators page says, "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority . . . it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users."  Is the Administrators page policy or not? —Simetrical (talk) 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably (hopefully) a large part of the reason that we were unanimously outnumbered until just now is that, idiot that I am, I originally wrote the page without specifying what, exactly, Ta bu shi da yu did that was wrong. I linked to two whole pages, without mentioning what part of them Ta bu shi da yu violated.  By the time I realized this and updated the Applicable policies section, we were outnumbered ten to two.  We'll see what happens now—we've just gotten our first supporter.  Now it's just thirteen to three. —Simetrical (talk) 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Numbers are irrelevant, since what matters is being correct or not, but count me in as a supporter, if only because her tone really pissed me off.--YixilTesiphon 02:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wrong sex mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but your name makes me think female. I'd probably call guys named Ashley "she" too. --YixilTesiphon 02:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Er? Sorry? Ashlee? what are you talking about? Where did you get the impression that my name is "Ashlee" out of interest? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't. But you're just asking for it having the syllable "shi" in your name. --YixilTesiphon 04:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Still don't understand it. My username is nonsense Mandarin (without tones). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Has to do with the way I read. When I read, I hear the sound in my head. Thus reading your name leaves me with "she" (shi), the only sound I recognize when I read your name. --YixilTesiphon 05:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * S'ok, my username confuses most people :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
The purpose of the RfC pages are to aid dispute resolution, with the emphasis firmly on the resolution. This page gives the various disputants the opportunity to see how others in the Wikipedia community see their dispute.

The message given by the community is relevant to all parties in a dispute - it indicates what is seen as reasonable or unreasonable behaviour - and it gives a chance for all parties to reflect.

Hopefully, this will be a positive experience, and lead to the underlying issue on how the 2004 page is presented being resolved in a spirit of positive co-operation.

The message on this page seems to be that many Wikipedians would welcome a negotiated end to this dispute - I hope all the disputants step back, and assess for themselves how to take the matter forward, jguk 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope this will be a positive experience and establish social norms that are acceptable to the Wikipedia community. I was quite happy to have this RFC made and if a majority of people felt that I was being unfair I would have bowed to consensus. So, admin activity is also under the microsope also, and I think that is a good thing as well. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A temporary protection is used for:
The voters don't seem to be being objective and instead are taking sides in a dispute. Perhaps there should be separate votes on each of the three criteria for protecting a page.--Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question For each of the criteria below, does the protection as implemented by the accused meet this criterion?

1) Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.

 * No, a compromise had been reached and the editing of the article was over on this issue. No protection request had been made. --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If a compromise had been reached, why was there still an NPOV tag on the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the compromise was that Astrotrain would have free rein in the article, but Ford would get to keep an NPOV tag there. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Two full weeks had passed since the last related edit to the article, parties had reached stasis.  Not an edit war by the loosest definition.  No request. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * By that logic, Germany and Britain were not at war between Sept 1939 and May 1940; that is, during the Phony War, they weren't really combatants. --Calton 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.
 * NO, there is no banned user involved, nothing had happened recently. --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No. No vandalism, no banned user. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

3) Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug in the MediaWiki software.
 * NO --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * This one doesn't even require discussion. --YixilTesiphon 00:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Guys: Nobody cares. Everyone else thinks TBSDY did the right thing. Every post you make to this RFC and its talk page, every minute you spend acting the self-righteous wikilawyer rather than fixing the 2004 article, just makes you look pettier and pettier. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Rather than participate in a jury nullification of the rules, why don't you change the rules? --Silverback 15:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not a court of law and we are not a jury; we are just users who are interested in the conflict and have offered their opinions. The rule TBSDY is accused of breaking is generally a good one, so I don't think anyone wants to see it done away with. I would wager that most of those who voiced support for his actions were willing to overlook a minor trangression by someone previously uninvolved in the argument, if that meant breaking a long-running NPOV dispute—a dispute which certain parties seemed, and still seem, quite happy to leave unresolved. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He could have forced a resolution without abuse of his administrative privileges. Specifically, he could have started a fair vote on how to resolve the dispute, and I'm sure that both Ford and Astrotrain would abide by the decision.  Wikipedia is a democracy, more or less, and policy is mostly decided through votes of various sorts.  The end may or may not justify the means in general, but surely it doesn't when the actor has other, preferable means at his disposal.
 * And by the way, you are our peers, come here to decide whether a specific rule applies to a specific case. That seems to me very much like a jury.  The only difference is that your decisions aren't binding. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Rules are ways to regulate use of the environment, not a sacred text to be worshipped. As someone once said, you're mistaking the map for the territory. --Calton 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Rules are ways to regulate use of the environment. They can't do so effectively if they're broken. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * ...and, as I said and you completely ignored, not sacred texts to be worshipped. Rules are always interpreted, which is why courtrooms have judges and not computers. And it's also true that rules can be a weapon in the hands of obstructionists like you and your fellow ninnyhammer who, instead of trying to settle the dispute that led to this sorry state, are trying to interpret the letter of the rules to avoid complying with the spirit. Look about you: you've gotten precisely TWO people to agree with and 15 who told you to, in effect, grow up and stop throwing your temper tantrums.

 * So I ask you: what IS your major malfunction? What peculiar psychological problem do you two have that render you two unable to work amicably and compromise on some simple articles? What is so difficult that about compromise that makes you two go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid it? --Calton 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004 is unlocked.
Hopefully the editors involved in that page will now resolve their issues and work towards compromises on this article. I have noted on the talk page that the article editors shouldn't just slap on the NPOV tag and not actively work towards a solution to getting rid of that tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If they slap on the NPOV tag again, you have my unqualified support in whatever action you feel necessary to deal with it. That doesn't mean anything officially, I know, but I thought I'd speak up here. --Calton 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)