Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 4 May 2007

message: (Moved from archived talk page JulesH 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that should be discussed in this article 

message: As discussed previously, much of this article was either unsourced or cited unreliable sources (blogs). After a long time waiting for better material, I've now removed it. Anyone who wishes to restore the material needs to find reliable sources for it. -Will Beback 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All in all, I think I like it better this way, with no "proponents say..." or "detractors say..." material. It exists, this is what it looks like, there are two spellings, and the process can be automated.  The end. Karen 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Good riddance to bad rubbish because that's all it was. Not to mention a waste of time.Marky48 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 72.225.217.252 - Do not post the real life names of editors - it is a serious offense. Regarding your authority on the topic. I don't doubt that you know a lot about it, but that is irrelevant under Wikipedia policies, which demand reliable sources and no original research. If someone writes in newspaper, magazine, or  book about the topic then those would be reliable sources. Blogs are not. Lastly, don't make everything personal. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's put the issues more directly. We have an instance where this topic, a technique, is claimed to have been invented by a person. That person's blog is our source for the claim, and that person is adding the claim here. Once we have some reliable sources attributing the creation of this technique to a person, then we can include this information. If we were really strict, we'd cut even more, at which point the notability of the topic would be in quesiton. That'd be a pity. -Will Beback 08:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I need to jump in here, reluctantly, but to speak my conscience.  The History section here seems pretty well sourced to me, and should not be deprecated. As was pointed out, the disemvoweling applet citations (and the citation of the thread where it all started) really ought to be sufficient for the invention (or "first known use") claim, regardless of who first wrote some version of those words.  There are numerous other references online, but they tend to be from blogs, as one might expect for this subject. On the other hand, I really think the Value section ought to go away.  Many attempts have been made to make it NPOV, and it's certainly more so than it has been at various times.  However, it seems evident that it's the most contentious, least verifiable section here, because it's primarily about value judgments (hence the name). Rightly or wrongly, even the factual material in it is constantly disputed, and one of the links (which I originally put in) goes far beyond the claims I was trying to source, to value judgments about a particular person.  Whether those judgments are justified or not, it makes that citation problematic. It seems to me that the better way to go is to leave the pros and cons out entirely, and let the reader decide, without guidance, whether disemvoweling is effective or ineffective, fair or unfair, temporary or permanent. The remaining citations should be sufficient (or made sufficient) to allow people to research the subject further. Karen | Talk | contribs 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, I'm mistaken about something.  The problematic link I put in a while back is no longer there, so I withdraw that objection.  The remaining links seem appropriate.  However, it still wouldn't break my heart to lose the Value section, and keep the rest, for reasons state above. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what sources other than blogs could reasonably be expected to exist, given that disemvoweling is unique to blogs.  --70.16.206.199 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources don't exist then we shouldn't have an article about this topic. -Will Beback 08:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on my end. It's vanity.Marky48 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: The article currently states:
:Arthur Hlavaty [...] was at least the first person to use the term in print
This sentence was added by TNH back when she originally rewrote the article.  Does anyone have any idea what print publication this was in, and what was said?  JulesH 14:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrug. And your ignorance is meaningful how, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your comment is meant "in good faith?" Who has heard of him is more to the point, but since you've been consistently hostile I propose you be defanged for this attack. Want to play with fire scarecrow? By the way New Hacker's doen't have it. Search and see for yourselves.Marky48 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your comment is meant "in good faith?" Yeah. How is your lack of knowledge of something the least bit relevant? Unless it's a confession of that form of solipsism that believes unless you personally know about something, it's not important to the rest of the universe. In which case it's relevant, but only in reinforcing your lack of credibility. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, just another member of the scifi community close to TNH. Friends begat friends begat...Fanzines, zines, all unqualified sources. With the history of the supporters of this article and the connection to each firmer and firmer as we dig deeper for sources, what we have is the equvalent of a circle jerk akin the Publishamerica authors Amazon five star reviews. I don't see how anyone can deny it, but then deniers are stubborn.Marky48 01:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ...but then, deniers are stubborn Yeah, like someone who can't admit he misspelled "bifurcation", no matter how many sources contradict him. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm on the record saying I mispelled the word, but used it correctly. Actually I added a different word that didn't exist, just like "disemvoweling" for example. Try again.Marky48 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooo, you're on record as continually insisting there was such a word as "bifrication" -- despite frequent corrections and offers of the correct word -- but if you want to use your atomic-powered hair-splitter to once again bend reality so you can continue to maintain your illusion that, once again, everyone is wrong but you, go ahead. Objectively, it doesn't do much for your reputation, but you burned those bridges here a long time ago -- and a little outside research shows that this is a regular pattern for you. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Atomic hair-splitter? No I corrected my mistake, but the meaning stands as I said. It's you who is splitting and attacking. This is not good faith clearly. I'll be filing charges of personal attacks. Mr. Beback are you watching this? What does matter is you people are a partisan gang. He "published noyhing in print. What part of zine don't you get? There is no legitimate source except to yourselves. That much is clear. It's a circle jerk.Marky48 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, I don't think you know what the publication is, so I don't care whether you say he published nothing in print or not.  You clearly don't want there to be any sources on this article, because you don't want this article to exist, so making it better isn't your primary concern.  And who or what exactly am I attacking?  If you're not going to contribute anything positive to this dicussion, please don't contribute anything at all. JulesH 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I don't care what your opinion is on anything. You don't agree with the moderators here and I do so good luck with that. As for the atack I was referring to calton. Sci-fi shills abound here without regard to sources. Zines don't count so try to grasp that fact if it's possible. At this point I don't think it is since insistance on getting your own way is paramount. It won't work because the rules won't be broken or altered on your behalf. Life is tough. If you can't adhere to the critieria please don't add more proof of that.Marky48 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Hlavaty 

message: I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes the subject of this article should remain what it has been all along, but others seem to disagree.  Just to gauge what the general consensus is, could people who have a particular opinion sign one of the lines below, so we can easily tell who thinks what about it? JulesH 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should the subject of this article be? 

message: WB's terse version is better.  There are infinitely many variations. For all we know, some forums remove y's that appear as the second letter of the word (those y's are usually vowels too). Or they might remove y's at random, using a random number generator; one can give a rationale for this as well. There is no reason to expound on the different treatments of the letter y;  the details are self-evident and uninteresting. Which is better, "Some teenagers get acne", or "Some teenagers get pimples on their cheeks, some don't get pimples at all, some get pimples on the ends of their noses, ..."?  Precis 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought the short version was overly terse.  The different ways to treat y in this context are interesting, especially because of the automation issue. By contrast, the short version is abrupt and unhelpful, IMO. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short version is fine--it communicates that "y" is an exceptional letter which is not handled in a consistent way.  As a compromise, I'd accept a concise sentence giving examples of treatment of "y", leaving out obvious rationale.  The sentence should in no way suggest that the list of examples is exhaustive.  Precis 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rationale is necessary.  For instance, it wouldn't be obvious to somebody who hasn't thought about automating the process why you wouldn't just remove the "y"s that are used as vowels and leave those that are used as consonants.  The rationales are common sense, so shouldn't require sources, other than the one for removing them at the end of words only, for which we do now have a source for the necessary information.  I agree about not suggesting the list is exhaustive though, as we have no evidence that it is.  These are just suggestions of possibilities. JulesH 09:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this?
Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is usually a vowel.[1]
forgot to sign... Karen | Talk | contribs 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds better than the current version to me. JulesH 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds better to me as well, but there are still problems. First of all, when y is at the end of an English word, isn't it always (not just usually) a vowel?  If you are going to insist that y is not a vowel in words like boy, buy, say, play, prey, then you are claiming that words ending in y-digraphs are less common than the other words ending with y, which I'm sure is true, but you have no source for this claim.  The technique of removing only terminal y's is a lazy, idiosyncratic approach, and hardly worthy of special mention.  The lazy approach leaves intact words like "rhythm", and with only a little extra programming, one could remove all y's in words lacking a,e,i,o, and u  (thus eliminating y's in words like "myth").  In my judgment, it suffices to mention the all or nothing approaches and leave it at that. Precis 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe 'y' at the end of a word is always a vowel, and the source I added seems to back that up, but it isn't quite explicit, and I hestitate to use the word "always" without a good source.  The technique of removing y's at the end of the word is mentioned because it is the technique used by at least one of the plugins in the list at the bottom of the article, although I forget which.  Unfortunately, it seems as though a plugin author's description of the software he has written isn't a reliable source about the features of that software, so this can't be explicitly mentioned in the article. JulesH 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version is a reasonable compromise. Precis 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The letter "y" 

message: I can't believe nobody has added a section yet explaining the various techniques of disemvoweling words like crwth and cwm. Precis 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the letter j, which is often a vowel in Scandanavian languages. ;) Karen | Talk | contribs 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I for one have only ever heard of the technique being used in English.  Besides, I believe in Welsh and Scandinavian languages, w and j respectively are always vowels, so it wouldn't exactly be a difficult choice. :) JulesH 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to discuss the various plugins designed for trolls who mention the Jyllands-Posten in the forums.   Precis 09:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the letter w 

message: "Citing from another source"?  Let's admit it, DTWW reproduced a passage from HF's blog entry.   I can perfectly understand the desire for vagueness, but we need to be forthright for our readers.  Quote the passage verbatim, and say where it was taken from. That will not invalidate the citation if the author of DTWW is considered an expert at cataloguing new words, as he may well be. Precis 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as wikipedia's policy is concerned, it doesn't matter what DTWW's source is.  And that's fair enough, because otherwise it would be impossible to put any information about blogs into wikipedia, because ultimately all such information is sourced from blogs.  What does matter is that DTWW doesn't actually say what we need it to say in order to back up what we've put in the article. JulesH 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source R quotes blogger B's statement S, then WP can say:  According to R, blogger B said S.  What WP cannot do is to assert S and then cite R as a reference for S, because what is reliable is not S but rather the fact that R quoted S. Precis 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view, the proposed new sentence is too awkward: too many "being"s.  Also, I'm wondering why you prefer to interpret the quote rather than to let the verbatim quote speak for itself. Precis 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A verbatim quote would be even better.  I'm just trying to figure out how to comply with the rules, and still show that the forum moderation technique exists, and has been mentioned by somebody somewhere.  Have you a better wording that incorporates the quote itself?  (Yeah, I thought that last "being" was awkward, too.) Karen | Talk | contribs 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh!  As I look at the article again, I see that this basic purpose has already been fulfilled.  Okay, then. Never mind. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally the "glaring problem" is my rendition of the generic sentence sans opinion. The problem? NO TNH! Obviously the plugins make it easier to employ. As long as no personal credit is referenced here it should fly farther than before.Marky48 04:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest change to the history section 

message: Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text.  It has been used as a method of self-censorship, for example, "G*d", and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling. [1], [2] For example, the moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:
Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt. 
The moderation technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process.
Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[3]
The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English.
Precis 22:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I like that the distillation of the definition to its essence, which applies to both usages, and to other fringe usages I've seen. I'm a little uncomfortable that there's even less explanation about deprecation and effort needed to read the text, but otherwise I like this compromise. Also the choice of the word for the splat out example is a good one, IMO. Karen | Talk | contribs 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the example, you could add "Deprecating disruptive text in this fashion makes it difficult to decipher"  if you think that is not overly alliterative. Precis 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it doesn't cite so-called inventors in a circular blog roundtable.Marky48 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK, depending on the context of [1] and [2].  (Although — it can obviously be used by disruptive moderators to suppress sensible, but unwanted, posts on their boards, so I suppose "the moderator is always right" is WP:Biased.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These are valid points, but note that the sentence "Deprecating disruptive text in this fashion makes it difficult to decipher" does not contradict the assertion that some moderators abuse their privilege.  As for the Barrett reference, many feel that it is problematic as long as disemvoweling remains an unresearched catchword. In order to reach consensus, we could replace Barrett by the less controversial source.  This is a source with editorial oversight that reliably verifies our assertion that the disemvoweling technique has been used for forum moderation. Precis 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source is a plugin. Hasn't this been proven with all those links to plugin builders?Marky48 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the plug-in code on this page for a moment, and focus on this passage above it, which verifies that disemvoweling has been used for suppression of trolling in forums: "This plugin removes vowels from comments posted from an IP in the disemvoweler blacklist. The idea is to remove trolls through humiliation, and has worked quite well in some forums." This WordPress source is reliable enough to reference in the body of the text--I'm not sure the other links are.  I have no objection however to relegating this source to the bottom, with the other plugin links. The point was to find a replacement for Barrett, which seems to be causing a lot of dissension. Precis 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, all the pages with plug-ins were deemed unusuable as sources by User:Will Beback, regardless of context. I agree that the WordPress one should be valid as a source, but I also think the Barrett citation is solid enough to use. On your alliterative addition, how about: "Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability, and marks it as deprecated by the moderator."  This way, no judgment is made about the moderator or the disemvowelee being right or wrong in their respective actions.Karen | Talk | contribs 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise? 

message: Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text. It has been used as a method of self-censorship, for example, "G*d", and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling. The moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:
Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt.
Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability and marks it as deprecated by the moderator. The technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process. Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[1]
The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English. 
-----------
Remark:We could place the Jargon File link and the Barrett link and WordPress link at the bottom along with the plugin links.  That would leave only one direct source in the body, but this should be ok, unless someone can point out an assertion that could be regarded as disputable. Precis 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! Karen | Talk | contribs 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, one more suggestion, though. Adding back "or other unwanted behaviors" after "internet trolling" would acknowledge the possibility that not everyone disemvoweled is necessarily a troll. Karen | Talk | contribs 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good idea. St jb 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need an exhaustive list of everything disemvoweling has been used for. Disemvoweling has been used by imperious moderators for suppressing people who disagree with them.  Do we need to mention that too?  I prefer the tighter wording, but ok, if it will bring equanimity, I can live with the addition. Precis 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking at this entry for Forum_moderator. Perhaps it would be useful to link to it as the article acknowledges that some moderators act more on their whims than by common sense, but it also acknowledges some boards have different rules regarding profanity and personal insults and the like. That may help maintain a neutral tone. St jb 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Precis 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise, part 2 

message: Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text. Some implementations include the use of homophones, e.g., "mates" becomes "m8s" [1, Guardian reference]. Disemvoweling has been used as a method of abbreviation, of self-censorship (for example, "G*d"), and as a technique by forum moderators to suppress Internet trolling and other unwanted posting. The moderation technique would leave the first sentence of this article looking like this:
Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s th rmvl f vwls frm txt.
Disemvoweling text in this fashion reduces its readability and marks it as deprecated by the moderator. The technique has been facilitated by plug-in filters to automate the process. Because the letter "y" is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated. Aside from an "all or nothing" approach, one option is remove a "y" only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel.[2]
The word follows the standard patterns of English orthography; i.e. it may be spelt either disemvoweling or disemvowelling, with the former generally prefered in US English and the latter prefered in British English.
Precis 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good to me. Thanks for working on this.  -Will Beback 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  And now it covers every usage I've ever seen of the term.  Well done! Karen | Talk | contribs 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  By broadening our characterization of disemvoweling at the outset, we were able to bring in a reliable source.  On the other hand, most of the article focuses on forum moderation, so I'm hoping this compromise will sit well with JulesH. Precis 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me. JulesH 09:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job. Thanks. St jb 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is now finally generic it suits me as well.Marky48 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise, part 3 

message: One of the links reads thus: Making Light - Autodisemvowelling A discussion of Disemvoweling techniques, including the above two plugins however I can assue you that as the article predates the authorship of NP_CommentBuddy (the one above) by some time it can not be talking about that.
Perhaps if the two plugins under discussion could be named directly.--Lord Matt 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, yeah, that's what happens when people start messing with the order of the links. :) JulesH 09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A relativly minor matter of reference 

message: (me again) might I suggest that a section on the effectivness of Disemvoweling in dealing with trolls might be a very good addition.  Perhaps leading on to links to similar techniques and maybe the loose identification of "family" groupings of such techniques. --Lord Matt 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I completely agree with you, there was once such a section that was the subject of continuous and repeated edit wars.  There are no good sources, and anyone who has been the subject of disemvowelling tends to view it rather negatively. JulesH 09:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hearMarky48 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a section would be welceomed if it can be referenced with reliable sources. -Will Beback 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti troll method? 

message: I hope to settle the current disputes by making the following changes:
* Clarify the context of the article.  It was never intended to be an article about linguistics, nor a definition of the word or the history of its usage; it is about a technique of censorship (used for both self-censorship and forum moderation) that is used on the Internet.
* Remove references to humourous uses of the word, as they are irrelevant to this subject.
* I don't see why it is even remotely relevant to note that the word is not in common use in print, so remove that.
* Remove suggestion that the preferred term is elision or telescoping, as these are not techniques of censorship.
It is now clear that the word is not one in active use by linguists.  Is everyone satisfied by this? JulesH 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Without my additions, it is not clear to anyone who reads the entry that it is not used linguistically. If you are unwilling to rename the entry or warn the reader about how they should use this word, then the article must be deleted. You mentioned the Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary policy, and I believe that this already is a definition of a rare slang word, rather than a concept. Therefore, since we cannot even make a proper dictionary definition, the entry must be deleted.--Richard Maxwell 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to describe the concept, how would you do it?  This is the aim of the article, and I don't see how to do it better than is done here. JulesH 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it says that "disemvoweling" has been used to censor. Instead, it should say that it is censorship. Also, no matter how much the term is restricted, if a reader is unaware of another name for the removal of vowels from text, they will use the word disemvowel to describe it. They will do this even if they are not referring to censorship. If a term is related to "disemvoweling," it should be mentioned here. Vowel elision is related to the subject of this entry. There seems to be a bad habit (or cancer, or what have you) on Wikipedia of focusing an entry to the point of making it un-encyclopedic and misleading. Wikipedia is a single work and understanding what vowel elision or vowel telescoping means helps the reader understand just how narrow a concept "disemvoweling" is.--Richard Maxwell 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text says "In the fields of Internet discussion and forum moderation, Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) is the removal of vowels from text."  I'd say it would take particularly poor reading comprehension for somebody to read this and assume it applies generally.  If you say vowel elision is related, fine.  I don't know anything about it.  Go ahead and create that article, and link it in under "see also".  Or maybe just link "elision", which already exists.  But the article should be about a single subject, and that subject in this case is the technique of censorship/moderation known as disemvowelling. JulesH 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Looks like Richard Maxwell has put it up for deletion. --Calton | Talk 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd AFD

message: and  are sockpuppets of user , as proven by an RFCU. He is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. If you see any future accounts adding the same material it is likely the same user and the material should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primetime theater 

message: This talk page is over 120KB long. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You might want to archive