|
No problem, I watch several school articles and this sort of mindless vandalism is, I am afraid, very common. Paste ( talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sally! Thanks for the feedback; I've been meaning to do something about the ICoC article for a while, but haven't gotten around to it yet. TransylvanianKarl has a substantial advantage over me, in that he's obsessed with the issue whereas I don't care at all – I'd never even heard of the church before I stumbled across its Wikipedia article. My only concern was, and is, preventing the spread of false information; I tried to combat this by elucidating the comprehensive truth.
Anyways, you've inspired me to submit a request for arbitration. I've suggested that TransylfanianKarl be permanently banned from editing (only) that article, and that it be permanently semi-protected. You can read my request here. Once it goes through, I'll revive the article; shouldn't be hard without Karl's interference.
Cheers! -- Xiaphias ( talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your removal of "Life is Bad" under "Popular Opinions" is so uncool. It is a popular opinion, and it is properly cited. It was also referenced in popular culture in an amusing way lately, and your edit completely ruins the joke:
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2997
Some people do believe Life is Bad. Their belief is a fact, their opinion is not uncommon, and it is perfectly within the context of the heading of the section "Popular Opinions" in spite of your declaration that there is no context around that item. It made sense to me, and it was awesome.
Joshua Gadbois ( talk) 15:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the edit and considered rewriting the section to make it flow better but when I saw the other entries in list form I saw it fits the rest of the section. I think it should stand.