Talk:Uncyclopedia: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncyclopedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Uncyclopedia was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 24, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept July 23, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept January 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept January 22, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept March 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 26, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept April 7, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept November 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept November 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 30, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing B‑class This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wikipedia B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Uncyclopedia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Uncyclopedia at the Reference desk.

Note: This talk page has been blanked and its archives broken several times since it was created in 2005. Old talk page comments can be found in the page history.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Spike-from-NH (talk · contribs)

Two editors have removed text with details on the fork of the English Uncyclopedia, stating the case that it is not notable when individuals take a private copy of a wiki for further parallel development. This should be pursued through discussion here and not a revert war; and those discussing should look in the archives of this page at previous discussions of the same question. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I have not argued that the private copy of the wiki for further parallel development is notable or not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Perhaps something is missing from your sentence. Your edit supports an argument that this move was not notable.) But Userafw, reverting the initial deletion (not yours), added a citation. To quote your Change Summary, do you claim that this citation does not settle the issue, or that it is not "independent coverage showing notability"? Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As user:Otterathome says, there is NO independent coverage showing notability of the fork, please cite that first" - I am clearly speaking about 'showing notability'

Userafw added a citation alright, but maybe that citation was in style with uncyclopedia: an unreliable, unindependent and uninformative source - A substract to a not-accepted WikiMania paper submitted by people involved by the site/fork. Hence my revert-remark. To answer your question, yes, I claim that a not accepted paper does not settle the issue, and it is certainly not independent. Moreover: "Various (30 April 2013). "The rebirth of Uncyclopedia: the story of a community that decided to take its hosting into its own hands". Wikimania 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2014." - authors of the paper, Kim Schoonover, Kunal Mehta, are clearly stated, as is their affiliation "Uncyclomedia Cabal" and their web-page. "Various" does not really cover the naming of those editors.

Somewhat related, I just noticed that the fork is again at the top of the list of sites, while the page is about the original, and we haven't even established the notability of the fork. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (I see that Otterathome also removed that, I was checking an old revid of the article --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

The independently-operated Uncyclopedia is, in fact, not a "private copy...for further parallel development". It is simply being crushed by Google's page-ranking because it contains duplicate material. Just as with the old site, anyone may edit, and anyone may become a registered user. In fact, it's simpler to join the independent site; an email address is not required, whereas the Wikia-owned site requires a valid email address. 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This post on David Gerard's blog is the only remotely independent coverage I'm aware of. Legoktm (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that is about the level of notability of that fact, only a blog? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Private fork" is incorrect; the community largely got up and left; but nobody in the press has noted this, because nobody cares about either Uncyclopedia in 2013-14. This is akin to the problem I noted at Talk:Citizendium#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F - things that used to be somewhat notable and still exist, but have no sources since then The actual answer is probably for the uncyclopedia.co crew to get out there and get some press coverage, of course. Assuming they care either - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is that not true for a lot of dead people as well - after a bit of time, all you get is regurgitation of the old material, nothing really new comes out (except for highly influential people) - the article is what it is, it contains what there is to say, and that is it. Strip out the non-notable and unreferenced material, polish it into a reasonable shape and the article is, practically, 'finished' for life (barring restarts, resurrection or divine intervention). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, the actual answer for the anonymous user writing above (with the usual conviction that his new home cannot be a mere copy, and that he'd have readers were it not for Google) is to use Wikipedia to boost readership, as when he modified the balance achieved between the two sites in previous discussion here. This, Beetstra, stands in the way of "finishing" the article. Separately, I accept your reasoning above why Userafw's citation was not independent coverage; but believe that the places where you now call for citation (such as the fact that the original site is operated by Wikia) do not need them. I accept your argument that Wikia-versus-fork does not belong in the lede, but this was worked out in a previous round to try not to take a position between the two websites. Spike-from-NH (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The split has not been reported hardly anywhere outside of the wikia world, and certainly not somewhere independent ánd reliable (a blog, an attempted paper) - that fact is not notable, and hence, should be removed altogether. The reason I ask for the other references is because I doubt that that can be independently source either. That sentence can probably be truncated up to the first {{fact}} tag (that part of the sentence is more matter-of-fact-like, what happened afterwards .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The need for citation is balanced out for the need to have a neutral point of view. In my opinion, removing all references to the fork would appear to bias Wikipedia, given the nature of the dynamics between the two sites. Usually, citation is needed when something is controversial, and the existence of the fork is not controversial. How much of the community moved is controversial, and the fact that both sites are active, was already discussed earlier here. Removing all mention of the fork on the grounds that it is unnotable invites Wikipedia to become a battleground, since I think you will not find consensus that it is unnotable, as many of the community members who left for the fork edit here. Moreover, not every fact in every Wikipedia article (for example, the expansion packs listed for The Sims) has an independent source, nor should it need to. Sometimes sources are reliable, but not independent. EA Games, for instance, is the source of much of the information in the articles relating to their games. As the developer of those games, it is not an independent third party. Userafw (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked by these remarks, Userafw, this is a complete misinterpretation of our policies and guidelines, and a disregard of others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me more details. How is this a misinterpretation of the policies and procedures, and who is being disregarded? Are everyone's interests being considered here? Userafw (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV still needs the material to be properly referenced, otherwise it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to not-notable 'facts'.

"I think you will not find consensus that it is unnotable, as many of the community members who left for the fork edit here" - their !voting should be simply disregarded, they are not a neutral party, they have a WP:COI - editors who are not active on Uncyclopedia should discuss and determine the consensus, and although the COI-members can have their say, they should not carry any weight in the outcome. I therefore do not see how removal of the fork invites Wikipedia to become a WP:BATTLEground.

Bringing in that facts in EA Games or The Sims are not sourced is not a reason that things here would not need a source - maybe the actually need a source there as well (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The situation there however is completely different from this situation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading WP:UNDUE, and though it specifies the need for reliable sources, it does not seem to insist that those reliable sources be independent. Please understand that there are potentially two groups with COI here: those from uncyclopedia.wikia.com or Wikia, and those from en.uncyclopedia.co. If you have been to the forums on either site, you will find that the culture in both sites is such that the sites would each like to forget about the other. Removing references to one site or the other would appear to be siding with the other site, and would mean this article would have to be constantly patrolled since that information is likely to be added back by someone. I think this is a much different situation than promoting quackery or conspiracy theories. To go back to my example with the Sims, some of the expansion packs have been reviewed by third party gaming magazines, but not all of them. Less independent sites, such as Sims fan sites, have reviewed all of them. Does this mean that we should cover only some of the expansion packs released for the game? My opinion in that situation is that to list some but not all released expansion packs would be to leave a noticeable hole in the information available. Userafw (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it needs independent sources is depending on the nature of the claim.

Of course there are two groups with COI here, that does not change the matter that their opinion should not weigh in in a discussion, nor should they be extensively editing the page here themselves. And your suggestion that one would be picking sides when editing the page towards one side or the other is gaming involvement. And there is also no problem with that this page needs constant patrolling, that is automatically done with watchlists.

Regarding Sims: So what? That is not a reason to keep or include things here, make your arguments why this is notable enough to keep here and let independent editors decide whether it should or should not be included. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also continue supporting ensuring that this article does not seem to side with either site, but agree with Beetstra that citing a diary of the Forkers themselves is equivalent to having no citation at all. If I do something claimed to be non-notable, citing my writings about it doesn't settle the claim. Regarding the state of the gaming page: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Given the degree to which the lede has been neutered (now even omitting either URL from the Infobox), I'd support merging the final paragraph into the description of the same thing inside "History" (where there are citations, such as they are) (and, separately, getting rid of the description of the "SOPA prank": It is not notable that Uncyclopedia sometimes turns the entire site and its main page into a joke, nor that once it shut down completely for a day, nor that you can continue viewing past pranks, and it remains documented here as continuing advocacy against SOPA in its newer incarnations). Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:14,15:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS--On second thought, although the above is a reasonable outcome (given the neutering of the lede), I don't think it is the best, as the fact that there are multiple websites is essential to understanding the subject and does deserve to be in the lede. What ought to happen is to walk back all of this month's changes, both from Beetstra/Otterathome's belief that the lede (as it wound up from the previous debate) was making wild assertions, and Anon's belief that it needs to treat his website better. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only regarding the PS. There are subjects that are not notable enough for an own article, or for a mention, even if it would, obviously, improve the understanding of said subject to have that article. I think a short mention in the history section could be fine, but since I do not see anyone outside of the direct surroundings care about the split, I would certainly not put this in the lede - I am afraid that for the lede it stops about at the takeover by Wikia, the rest can be mentioned in the history section, as long as it does not get a lot of disproportional weight with respect to the rest of that section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be about a group of wikis in multiple languages; most of the wikis listed here link to "en.uncyclopedia.co" as their English-language version - with the only notable exceptions being languages which are hosted by Wikia and do not have control over the interwiki links table. It's been a while since I've looked at these, but the split has had a huge effect on the project - whether good or bad is for history to decide - and therefore should be duly noted, much like the Wikitravel mess is noted in Wikivoyage. K7L (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

".. the split has had a huge effect on the project .." - that is exactly what we should then have reliable sources for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard has slapped OR on this article. In case this is not simply extending his above assertion that nobody cares, to an assertion that nobody should care, occasional contributor PuppyOnTheRadio has reread the article and tells me the only OR he detects is the documentation of the stated reasons for creating the Fork site. I was proud of my editing here, which replaced 95 Theses against Wikia with a neutral summary; but I concede that we will never be able to verify this apart from statements by the individuals themselves of what their intentions were. Hearing no objection, I will remove both the rationale for the creation of the Fork and the tag on the article. Spike-from-NH (talk) [11:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)][reply]

This is now done. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a huge WP:COI in editing here, given your connection to the project. I am reverting your deletions of information from the article. K7L (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, on the real issue, are you asserting that the text I deleted, and you restored, is objectively verifiable? Of course not, because it isn't; you are just arguing ad hominem regarding my "connection to the project"--which neatly sidesteps the issue of your connection to the project. Spike-from-NH (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 23 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Ych y fi...

Yes, Spike, this is most definitely a COI and this is why Lyrithya and I would not remove stuff like that from the article without discussion, so you should not have done that either. We all know how involved you are and a great many of us think your opinions are not accurate, and though that last bit may not be relevant to anything you should not be editing this. There are citable sources for the reasons behind the creation of the fork just as much as there are for the rest of the site; while they are primary sources, if primary sources were not acceptable here it would have to go to afd, which I wonder if it should anyway.

I will revert any further edits by Spike to this (assuming I catch them before someone else does - thank you K7L), and if doing so would cross the 3 revert rule I will go to the noticeboard, and we shall have to see where it goes from there. Cathfolant (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I will note here that I believe Spike's way of turning every doubt cast on him into an accusation directed at the other editor, something that has repeatedly surfaced on this talk page as well as on Uncyclopedia, is inappropriate and a violation of WP:AGF and possibly WP:NPA. I assume you will disregard this, Spike, since you know my position on this matter and possibly even who I am, but you are not the only one who can act on my observation (though of course I hope it doesn't have to come to that). Cathfolant (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Spike was trying to remove the edits that he thought triggered the original research tag to be placed. Perhaps a citation needed tag on those edits would have sufficed. If Uncyclopedia editors have a COI, then you too have a COI, and this information may be contested not by Spike, but rather by the independent editors who do not edit Wikipedia who have removed the information about the fork as unnotable. Saying you will revert all of one specific editor's future edits to an article, is also a violation of WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. If you check the history of the Uncyclopedia article, removal of most of the information about the fork was not done by Spike. Instead, the balance between the two sides was upset by an "independent" editor, who could even be someone who no longer edits Uncyclopedia because they became disgruntled with the site. All we know however, is that they do not currently edit Uncyclopedia, and do not want anyone who edits Uncyclopedia to have a vote in the contents of the article. Userafw (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Cathfolant, on "remov[ing] stuff like that from the article without discussion," the discussion is in the previous section and this is a continuation of edits by Beetstra, who seems to be uninvolved with the websites, also David Gerard, who takes pride in no longer being involved. I am an Admin at the Wikia site and have taken care to keep my edits to this article neutral, mostly removing obsolete text and toning down the various screeds against Wikia; and you are Llwy-ar-Lawr, who edits on the Fork site, and on several other Wikia properties to divert traffic to the Fork site.

Again, the edit in question removes the stated rationale for forming the Fork, which it has been argued at length is not verifiable except by citing the opinions of the people doing it. That is why your message above relies on threats against me and your claims that "a great many of us think your opinions are not accurate." My opinions are not all inaccurate, and of course that barb sidesteps the task of identifying the inaccuracy here. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I take pride in no longer being involved ... I stop by occasionally, but not a whole lot. There's nothing inherently wrong with a wiki contributor removing OR from an article about that wiki, COI is not entirely clear in that aspect, and this invocation of it is coming across as querulous - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userafw is right. Spike is not right in most of what he said and I feel no need to go into detail because there is nothing I can say that will do any good.

I would like to know exactly why the fork's link is not in the external links, though. It's certainly relevant enough, I should think. Cathfolant (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a noticeboard thread on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Uncyclopedia. This is a Wikipedia article. It is not part of Uncyclopedia itself, and is not an appropriate forum for administrators of whatever version of the English-language Uncyclopedia to be removing information in blatant violation of WP:COI. K7L (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding content about the spinoff until third-party coverage is found. If this continues, this page will likely be fully protected, and the uncyclopedia.co link being added to the WP:BLACKLIST.--Otterathome (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, notability applies to the article, not the content. Weight may be given to content according to coverage, but though very little about Uncyclopedia has been covered in reliable sources at all for years now, that doesn't mean the article shouldn't be kept up to date. -— Isarra ༆ 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In relationship to notability - the site uncyclopedia.org/Uncyclopedia.wikia.com has been referenced in several publications in the past, and as such meets notability criterion. The site at uncyclopedia.co is a significant aspect of the history of that site. While I am in agreement that the independently hosted site may not - at this stage - merit an article of its own accord, it is significant in relationship to this page. (In the same way the child of a celebrity may not be notable enough to merit an article of it's own, deleting the mention of the child from said celebrities article would be counter-productive.) PuppyOnTheRadio talk 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of this article including SPIKE have worked hard to keep the content fair, reliable and objective considering the lack of third party sources available. These squabbles are also a waste of all of our time. Having NO content about the fork does no one any good...especially wikipedia's readers. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the two posts above that references to the Fork would be useful. I think it is useful to note that the Wikia site uses Wikipedia as a standard for whether a new article constitutes cyberbullying, and it would be useful to note that the Wikia site doesn't share usernames with the rest of Wikia. Famously, Wikipedia does not exist merely to hold useful information, and the issue raised was not utility but notability, on which the right answer is not as clear. Shabidoo, regarding wasting time, this article had reached a state of balance acceptable to all until young editors at the Fork began debating emergency measures that might be taken to goose their site traffic. To For others to debate by bringing me up on conflict-of-interest charges might be viewed as a time-waster too. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:05,22:02 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because he or she is edit-warring reflexively at this point. But let me just make three points:

1. The article was full of out-of-date information sourced by dead links that I quite properly removed;
2. While certainly we can't write about anything that isn't reliably sourced, external links aren't sourced at all, and there is no more justification for "blacklisting" the en.uncyclopedia.co link than there is for "blacklisting" the uncyclopedia.wikia.com link.
3. It is inaccurate to call en.uncyclopedia.co "the fork." There is no "official" version of Uncyclopedia. The articles are copyrighted under Creative Commons, and Wikia no more owns Uncyclopedia than do any of the editors. Any site that hosts Uncyclopedia articles is Uncyclopedia. It is accurate to say that the wiki forked; it is inaccurate to say that either "tine" of the fork is official in any capacity.

KarakasaObake (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section strikes me as ridiculously overlong; no one cares about tiny tempest-in-a-teapot events. Are the King's College/Northern Ireland/Stropshire controversies really important to anyone? Do they contribute significantly to the article? Could they, at best, be replaced with a single sentence saying that Uncyclopedia has produced articles that have been criticized by various bodies?

I also think the Video Professor incident truly amounted to nothing; a single cease-and-desist letter was sent out.

I find the only truly notable things here to be:

• The Malaysian Internal Security Ministry's directive
• The PRC's block of the site
• The Absurdopedia prohibition (but significantly abridged from the enormous wall of text).

Thoughts? I'd be happy to cut it down to a more reasonable size. KarakasaObake (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay another neutral editor stepping in. Sure, go ahead, do as you see fit. On your edit to update the info on the number of articles, I will note that the fork (or whatever you would prefer to call it) has between 29k and 30k articles (see here), whereas only the wikia version has over 30k; you may wish to note that, or you may not. Cathfolant (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to be clear, I do have my thoughts on the handling of the fork situation (which others may not share) - but I also want to improve the article, period. KarakasaObake (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]