User talk:Dorftrottel

streams of insults

Regarding this (now-removed) comment: (i) What precisely is the issue, iyo? (ii) I'm not "throwing insults against articles", I'm simply noting that pure plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles by any stretch of imagination. If you think otherwise and believe Wikipedia should allow this (which it currently does not, to my understanding), you might want to address this at e.g. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not or WP:VPP. (iii) So what should I stop? Repeating what Wikipedia policy says about the issue of pure plot summary articles? Dorftrottel (warn) 11:09, April 29, 2008

I removed that comment to phrase it better, but since you ask: (i) The issue in that particular section is the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen. This pops up every now and then, and it is best addressed promptly. Derailing the topic for any reason sucks. (ii) That is what you were doing, but I figured you would not object to my description considering that in doing so you went well out of your way and off-topic to belittle such things. Those enormous quotation marks looked nice, though, thanks for that. If I was wrong, then I apologize. (iii) I think (i) covers this. HTH. --Kizor 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen — If I'm not completely mistaken, we do indeed agree that it is generally a bad idea to plunge into blind actionism without awaiting an expert opinion. OTOH, a court case is not a good reason to defend crappy articles, either. What I (and e.g. also Ursasapien) are trying to establish is that disproportionate plot summaries are a matter of purely encyclopedic concern, entirely regardless of that court case. To make it very clear: No blind actionism does not equal No action that goes, even it's for only indirectly related reasons, in a similar direction (i.e. stubbifying/AfD/etcpp). Dorftrottel (ask) 12:17, April 29, 2008

Jaina Solo AfD close

Thanks, I was waffling between closing as delete and no consensus which ultimately led me to believe that I should go with the latter. If there is no significant improvement to the article in the future, it will be much more difficult to make the case for keeping next time around.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard

You're right. It just looked ugly! Should put in alias. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yup, same thing. I did it within the text as the see also template doesn't allow it (as far as I can tell). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical attractiveness

Sorry for not using an edit summary. I removed the link to cuteness since it is linked in the same section and not needed there. Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Logan

Hi Dorftrottel, I made the change I did because that sentence makes no sense as it stands. Was she married to the first lady for a time? That is how the sentence read? Maybe we should take this to the talk page? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quit deleting blank spaces in a section header on my discussion page

You've done it four times: 1, 2, 3, 4. Vandalism of my discussion page is neither welcome nor clever. See, among other things, WP:HUSH. Tennis expert (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]