• I understand what you were trying to do, but you should be aware there are many of Wikipedians, probably the majority of us, who see no difference between "articles on a fictional universe" and "good Wikipedia-worthy article."
User:SimonP [1]
  • You don't have any rights.
User:Tony Sidaway [2]
  • Fuck process.
User:Tony Sidaway [3]
  • Please remind me, but this is the internet right, so if I feel up to it, I can insult you all day long, right?
User:PistolPower [4]
  • Jimbo needs to be willing to discuss policy if he is going to take an active role in writing it.
User:Guanaco [5]
  • Consensus be damned.
User:Doc glasgow [6]
  • ... will the beatings continue until morale improves?
User:Lawyer2b [7]
  • This article is crap ... I'm going to go nuclear on it."
User:Jimbo Wales [8]
  • 18:42 < TimStarling> well, take it out of rotation and see if the site stays up
User:Tim Starling (on IRC, 22 Feb)
  • You often bring valid points to a discussion and are a valuable editor, but that does not mean that you are always right. It also means that you do not have to be proven wrong to have an article changed from the way that you want it. If you are right the article will be changed ultimately because you were right, not because you were arguing the point.
User:Reflex Reaction [9]
  • I love this show. This does not mean I understand it. Please explain it to me...
User:Jimbo Wales [10]
  • I am concerned that you block people you're involved in arguments with a little too freely.
User:Georgewilliamherbert [11]
  • There are enough loose cannons running around with a mop & bucket.
User:Jcam [12]
  • I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion
Brad Patrick <bpatrick@wikimedia.org>, WikiEN mailing list [13]
  • I suppose asking you all to stop bickering would be an exercise in futility?
Phil Sandifer [14]