Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 4

message: Weak yes. The idea is a good one and will help distinguish userboxes and start new ones of similiar titles. More support should follow. --DrZeus 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since everyone was complaining about the whole "German" thing, we've move to a more country neutral title. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And this isn't a !vote. It already happened, and we've already moved. We aren't just going to go back. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have been totally out of it last night. I'd like to caution User:DrZeus not to edit my comments on this page dif. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and no My two cents: 
*I think that moving longstanding userboxes from the template space in an unnecessary pain in the ass to users, and generally shouldn't be done.
*I agree with the premise of creating all new userboxes (or moving userboxes with very few transclusions) in the userspace from now on, however this does not justify moving old ones out. Wikipedia:Userbox policy should require all new userboxes to be created in userspace.
*Wikipedia:Userboxes should be a complete and central directory of all userboxes, hosted in userspace or not, as it used to be. There is no reason to have 50 different userbox directories moving around.
*Userbox-hating admins should enforce their POV about userboxes on other users. If they don't like userboxes, then nobody's making them use them. Why should they make others who like userboxes suffer? I do agree with deleting inflamatory userboxes, but deleting a box that says "This user drinks Coca-cola" is stupid. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox Migration? Reelection! Cast your official vote 

message: After all these people of different personalities are arguing about userboxes, I have chosen to create an essay on the topic in my userspace of corse. If you wish, change it, rip it to shreds, or praise it. It's located here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I guess the next step is who want to make a userbox for it? And if it's created in template space, who will snatch it up and adopt/migrate/take it? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At your request, I have changed your essay.  I think it's actually very useful and will help people understand why any proposed userbox policy will take a long time to reach consensus.  Also, please see Template:User UBXEssay--NThurston 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Royalguard didn't mean it literally.  I actually had to reverse right and left to make it make any sense at all.  But it can be done.  Generally, now "right" means a freer templatespace, and "left" mean a more restricted templatespace - pushing towards userspace.  While it's not an easy fit, you can sort of see a correspondance with the political spectrum because the templatespace/Right end of things corresponds to less "governing" interference with personal actions (put all templates in template space, use the existing rules to enforce it) and the userspace/left end of things correponds to more "governing" interference and regulation (someone else gets to tell you where your userbox is located, whether it's divisive, etc.)  I can't think of another taxonomy that would work any better anyway.  --NThurston 16:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must...resist temptation to adopt new userbox... Or would the far right want their userbox in template space, and the far left want it in userspace? Or should I nominate it for TfD because it's redundent to User:Tl1/UBX essay (which allows a choice too). Actually, the new edits look ok. I originally had the template spacers on the left to corispond with the hippy movement (free everything, nobody tells me what I can and can't do), and the userspacers on the right (we must do it this way, authoritarian, ect). I think it's pretty cool that people have read it. I still open it up to editing, after all this is a wiki. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had to readopt the box, the user seems to be almost non-existant, no user or talkpage. This is just a precaution to be certain that it isn't deleted. I've moved it to  just so everyone knows. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Now I see what they mean by ownership issues!  (Insert lots of smiley icons here.) I created it.  Then I adopted it onto Tl1 because that has a nice short name - User:Tl1/UBX essay.  And where is it?  User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay.  Hmph.  Note to newbies:  We are just having a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun with the userbox, but the essay is actually quite informative.  And, you know, being a userbox libertarian/librarian, I think it's kind of neat that it exists in both template and userspace and I also think it could be fun to see how people choose to declare their opinion on userboxes (not biases, those were checked at the door). --NThurston 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone know who User:Tl1 is anyways? It just seemed to be someone who made a couple comments on here (I think by contri's). NThurston, is that you? (I'm going by a diff here). Cause if it is, then it might be better to have the box there. It's an "outward" neutral location (except to us). I actually don't really care where the box is, I just want to make sure that an admin doesn't come along and say "oh, no userpage, so no user, so no subpages allowed". You know? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new Essay 

message: I don't think this was ever meant to be a "solution" or "compromise" - I always interpreted this as a way to just stop the conflict over POV boxes.  (As a reminder, this really only addresses the "in which namespace should POV userboxes be?" question, which was a consequence of a larger unanswered question about whether they might not encourage the right sort of mindset while editing the encyclopedia.)  This page really shouldn't be presented as a "solution" in the box at the top as it only addresses a tangential objection, and also shouldn't be a "compromise" because that falsely implies that there is "consensus", which doesn't even apply here because this procedure was described as something to "just do".  As it is, these wordings probably just serve to rile up people.
Of course, I may be interpreting this all wrong, if somehow the rest of the objections were smoothed out somewhere and I missed it? But if there isn't any objection, I'll just remove that wording from the page. -AySz88\^-^ 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Compromise solution"? 

message: I think we should add something about the user called UserBox. Making the userboxes here (like for example User:UserBox/User Earth) makes links to userboxes much shorter and more uniform. Any thoughts? Cristan 07:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure someone's tried that before, and people didn't like it, I think because of the similarity to a role account.  It's not quite the same though - the username can be blocked (making it unable to be used as a role account) while the function you're aiming for can be preserved.  I'm a little fuzzy on how that whole debate went, though.  -AySz88\^-^ 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember which exact name was discussed before, but the idea is proliferating to some degree; check out  and  - oi. -- nae'blis 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One which Cyde nixed was :User:Box.  You can see the deletion log and note where the Talk page redirects.  --NThurston 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Tony blocked User:Boxes, which I'm pretty sure was the one I was specifically thinking of earlier. You'll probably have to get some sort of sanction to allow a special-purpose account for this, if you really think it's important. -- nae'blis 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The user "UserBox" 

message: Well, I had a "this user contributes using Firefox" template, and now it seems to be being migrated, on the basis that userboxes promote factionalism.  My level of caring about factionalism is incredibly low, and I had no interest in being part of some kind of Firefox faction, which seems absurd to me.  I've never been particularly a userbox person - all I had was that and a language box.  My reason for the box was more or less the same reason I had the language boxes - I thought it might be useful in some contexts for people to be able to easily see what browser I use, in case there was some kind of browser display issue, so as to minimize any confusion and misunderstandings that might result from that.
Now I see that, in fact, this isn't why I had that box at all, but that it was rather an attempt on my part to promote some kind of political campaign.  So I'm irritated.  I've always thought userboxes are silly, and yet now I find that my user page is broken because basically the only stupid userbox I have has been ruled frivolous.  It seems to me that user boxes that are actually vaguely useful to the project should stay in the template space, which seem to be the official policy.  Perhaps I am wrong that a template indicating what browser one is using is vaguely useful for the project?  anyway, I'll be damned if I'm going to have a userspace userbox on my page, so it's gone.  Irritatedly, john k 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, there is usually a box that says this box replaced by this, so all you need to do to get your box back is to replace the code. Why are people making this so hard for themselves? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about replacing the code.  I don't want a user box that is in user space.  I am not irritated the my userbox is broken.  I am irritated that my userbox was judged frivolous. For God's sake. john k 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ouch. Apparently, my moves are causing much unhappy misunderstanding. Does anyone think I should move them all back?? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the long-run viability of this compromise, I highly recommend that people not get too enthusiastic about userfying popular userboxes that are not particularly controversial.  The hard feelings that ensue have the potential to reignite old flames.  In short, this approach should only apply to controversial boxes initially.  There are enough of those to work on to keep y'all busy for a while.  Later, we can work out "unencyclopedic."  --NThurston 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's generally easier to itentify "controversial" boxes. At this point, what "groups" or "types" of boxes are still in template space that are particularly controversial? My impression is that the "biggies," politics, religion, beliefs, etc., already have been moved.  Rfrisbietalk 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's true. I was mostly thinking of the new ones that are created AND the keeping of the old ones from returning.  However, I think there's a good point that browser use isn't controversial and probably not "unencyclopedic," so rather than force the debate on unencyclopedic into case law, let's continue to discuss it before we migrate.  --NThurston 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I  classified the browser as unencyclopedic because it doesn't help the Wiki. Similar edits can be made whether you're using FireFox or IE or Windows or Linux. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar edits can be made, but that's surely not the only issue.  There might be display differences, for instance (that is to say, one might have a browser-specific display problem), or any number of other reasons why it might be useful to know what browser somebody is using. If what browser one uses is not useful, than pretty much no userbox is, I should think. john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's where you may have gotten ahead of yourself.  I have had more than one occasion where a template or other edit affects different browsers differently.  When someone flamed me for making a change - I said "what problem?"  We quickly noted that I use FF and they use IE, and were able to work together to make sure that the changes are compatible on multiple platforms.  Hence these things could have a lot of the value to Wikipedia.  --NThurston 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Browser preference is both useful to know and controversial, as anyone who's watched the browser wars will attest to. I'd much prefer to have it in userspace than gone altogether. -- nae'blis 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there you have it! While communication is a good thing, how you do it is a power thing. Hence, userbox migration. At least we know where we stand...out on the information superhighway, playing in the middle of traffic. :-) Rfrisbietalk 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irritated that a userbox was judged frivolous? Thats a new one. Far Right! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm irritated because the userbox migration page specifically says not to go overboard, and browser usage seems like a clear instance of that.  I'm also irritated that I've apparently been judged to be akin to those ridiculous users with 60 user boxes, saying that they support Francisco Franco and sunshine and kittens.  Although perhaps this is more irritation at myself than anything. john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John K, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't construe the migration of any particular userbox as a "judgement" against yourself, or even necessarily against the box.  I think it's more an example of an object in motion tending to remain in motion.  Someone's userfying boxes, and they figure, "this one might as well go, too."  It doesn't mean that anybody thinks you're indulging in excessive frivolity, or anything like that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "controversial" in what way?  I mean, saying "my browser is the best" would obviously be controversial, but I don't see how simply stating what browser one uses could possibly be controversial - what controversy does that involved?  john k 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My browser =best =POV, Template space=NPOV. Is that so hard to understand? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However: I use this browser = NPOV fact --NThurston 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, I never thought the browser ones would be migrated. Then again, I never thought we'd migrate the birthday one either (that one will be a nightmare). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm incredibly annoyed to find out that my firefox and MS windows userboxes have been replaced. I support the Extra edit buttons script and it is very important to know what browser/OS combination people are using so I can support them when they have problems. It is appears that rather than providing me with useful these people who request my support are subversives who want to undermine Wikipedia. I understand that there is a problem with POV userboxes and something has to be done. However, a small group of users forcing through their preferred solution isn't a solution at all. This is something fundamental and needs agreement. I'm especially annoyed because the authors of WP:UM know they won't reach agreement around their solution so they just stick "this is not a policy as doesn't need to be" at the top of the article as if that makes it OK. --MarkS (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather annoyed 

message: Why do I get this image of boxes flying south for the winter? :) Ok, enough of my spam, I'll go away. ---J.S (t|c) 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because that's where userspace is in this grand wikiworld. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odds are they won't be flying back, though. ;) CameoAppearance orate 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why this isn't called Userbox periodic migration! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userbox Tax Retreat? --BlueSquadronRaven 07:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that like a tax shelter? -- nae'blis 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Userbox Death March? Oh, wait... -- nae'blis 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, some consensus building! :-) Rfrisbietalk 15:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All kidding aside, I don't see that in any way this has led to the destruction of userboxes, so don't try to cite me as agreeing with that viewpoint. If anything, some of the pages that were deleted on sprees earlier are coming back via DRV; maybe that's an example of Userbox Zombification? -- nae'blis 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  migration? 

message: Due to this policy (or the german solution one, I'm really not sure) several of the userboxes I've been posting in my userpage have disappeared. Could anyone please tell me where may I find the userboxes formerly labelled as "Renaissance man" and the ones referring to Wikipirates (pirates are better than ninjas etc...)?Rosa 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start here and look under whatever categories you originally found them in. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, found the wikipirates one but I still can't find the one formerly labelled as user Renaissance man, could anyone help me out with this one? (It's the one about a Renaissance man having bad teeth and a life expectancy of 35).Rosa 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this it? User:Jokes_Free4Me/UserBoxes#Renaissance_Man ? -- nae'blis 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yep, thanks :) Rosa 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Rosa 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use "file links" on the image page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just used http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+user+Renaissance+man&btnG=Search - took about 12 seconds. :) -- nae'blis 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for Userboxes 

message: Why can't we just create a "userbox" area and put all the userboxes under "Userbox/User whatever"? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler and less controversial than moving boxes back to user pages?
I'm sure I must be missing something, since if that was ok it seems like it would have been done a long time ago. Robert 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a similar suggestion here. - jc37 09:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't per WP:JOU. I read The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer. Jimbo Wales.  He's the ultimate authority per this decision by the ArbCom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it exactly backwards there ... ArbCom's authority was granted by Jimbo, not the other way around.  --Cyde Weys 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why not just a "userboxes/" area? 

message: Considering the arguements about "official" namespaces, and such, I find the existance of this category up for CfD ironic. - jc37 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. CfD is now called Category for Discussion, and the !vote is for a renaming from :Category:Sexual orientation user templates to :Category:Sexual orientation Wikipedian userboxes per the standards of trying to separate the encyclopedia portion from the community portion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't understand. I was commenting on the fact that this is a category of userspace userboxes. And the argument that there are "official" namespaces kind of falls apart in this discussion. I just consider the whole double-standard going on here more than ironic. - jc37 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued irony

message: Is someone willing to adopt User:Rockthing/Userboxes/overuse? Rockthing would rather not host it anymore, and I am unclear on if anyone else userfied it. Outright deletion does not seem to be the goal here. -- nae'blis 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I adopted it. Now it's at . If someone else wants it, feel free to move it on. Rfrisbietalk 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, 'tis the season. It's now at . Rfrisbietalk 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The wiki-drama always occurs when I'm not here. I adopted some userboxes a while back from User:Digitalme. Maybe I'll just adopt another book box. I've got a lot of those. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought somebody had a bot that was approved for fixing userfied boxes... The Raven's Apprentice maybe? (see section #Rather annoyed, above) -- nae'blis 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very un-Rfrisbie-like to leave backlinks like that. I guess I'll do as much as I can, but Mac's don't have AWB, so it'll be slow working. Maybe I'll ask someone to write me a bot one of these days. Or just figure out how to get pywiki to work from Special:Whatlinkshere (if that even works). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll use AWB to clean up my messes. I just couldn't do it right away. I'll get to it before I'm drummmmmd out of the 'pedia! ;-) Rfrisbietalk 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There and there! Now, can I get back to taking over the world?! *Oh yeah, that was part of taking over the world.* Nevermind. By the way, If anyone else knows of any other poor little orphans, just send them over to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. The door is always open. No need for me to bring them all over by myself. :-) Rfrisbietalk 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a superstar, Rfrisbie; thanks for doing that legwork. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're great, mate! I'll keep a keen eye out for lost lambs like that and herd them into your shelter if I find some. CharonX/talk 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  little orphaned userbox 

message: I didn't want to inject this into the discussion above, but I saw this comment and wanted to use it as a jumping off point for an idea that's been brewing in my mind since I first became involved in the "Userbox Question."  Speaking of userbox migration, Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) stated that (added wikilinks mine):
And, you know what, if you don't like it you can go and tell Jimbo, Cyde, Tony, Doc glasgow, Mackensen, and any others that its userbox hunting season again. If this collapses, that's what happens Just check out here for what it was like before we existed. - 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you do that without invoking Godwin's law?  Also, are you proposing a constructive alternative, or just predicting that we're in for more trouble later? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfortunate that it has come to this. But, userboxes have to do with supply and demand. There was a supply before, so it created a demand. Now, there will always be a demand for this supply of userboxes. I asked for a logical argument above, and this is the best argument on this page I have seen in a while. Clear, concise, logical. The thing is, they never go away, the userbox-deletionists. Reasons? There are many given on my current RFA (Disclaimer: It is a link to my RFA. I don't care how/if you vote, but there is currently a discussion under question 4 about many things pertaining to userboxes. If it gets any longer, it'll probably be on the talk page soon. I would not normally link to any RFA, but there are many userbox questions there). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as Mike Godwin's postulate goes, I think invoking Neville Chamberlain is once removed from an actual Godwin invocation.  My best alternative for userboxes would be that the templates go back to Template space, and that logic be applied to what need meet article standards (articles) and what need not (userpages).  That said, I realize that the knives are already out for that solution.  I'd be happy with any solution that returned userboxes to a communal storage location, along with appropriate protective modifications to deletion policy.  A contributor on my talk page describes the Germanification of userboxes to be the equivalent of hiding the Picasso behind the coatrack.  A userbox is still a userbox no matter where it is stored.  Those who love them will still defend them, and those who hate them will still seek their destruction.  Perhaps instead of Chamberlain, I should compare this solution to the Maginot Line.  It looks like a solution, but it seems destined only to delay the inevitable.  --Ssbohio 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one assumption there I'd really question: "those who hate them will still seek their destruction".  I "hate" userboxes, in the sense that I think they're bad for the project, in a way that changing namespaces does nothing to address, and yet I'm not seeking their destruction.  Nor do I know of anybody who is.  I think most of the anti-userbox crowd is ok with following Jimbo's lead on this: we're tolerating them in userspace, and we hope people will be convinced by reason that POV boxes aren't appropriate here. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The test case posted below by Royalguard11 is further evidence that Wikipedians - even "anti-userbox" Wikipedians, accept Jimbo's suggestion that we, "let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that." -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate that this is the reality in which we (wiki-)live. Some userboxes are not accepted in template space, and the only reason that userboxes started re-appearing in template space was that consensus was so stacked against deletion. You might be interested in the almost restart of the userbox wars in the past week . Scarry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A measured response to a clearly provocative offense. I'll guarantee it won't be the last of this nature. A class war it's not. Rfrisbietalk 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at what Centrx's made of it though? "Where are these lines drawn and who decides where to draw them? Why should infamy decide whether a userbox is allowed? Is a userbox more conducive to creating an encyclopedia simply because fewer people will know enough to be revolted by it?" and "What is consensus; how is consensus formed? Do consensus decisions result from counting numbers in a poll advertised to partisan allies? Should a userbox be allowed simply because the political position in it is more popular? " Yikes. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. RfA isn't quite a Supreme Court nomination hearing, but some would have you believe it is. The price of admission to adminship is a quarter-pounder, for sure, but never forget this is just a wiki. What matters (IMHO) is you be true to yourself. All the things that appear on userpages (boxed or not) are lovely windows to the human pysche. Enjoy the view and then move on. :-) Rfrisbietalk 05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the most philisophical thing I've heard in a while. Maybe we should make that fit in somewhere. Or it'll go on the essay at least. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lesser evil isn't the same as the greater good