User:Theresa knott/Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments

Note: The above so-called "semi-prod" is part of a semi-experimental indefinite deletion policy and may or may not be semi-disputed in the interim.

This page is a candidate for speedy semi-deletion
If you do not fail to disagree with its speedy (or lethargic) semi-deletion, please explain yourself on its talk page, or at Speedy semi-deletions.

Note: All signatures have been removed from this page (except for the signatures that remain on this page), pending the appropriate legistrative passing of appropriate Wikipedia:Semi-policy with regard to disagreement with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program].

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, process, word-of-God, or written-in-stone. The proposal may still be stupid, as proven under discussion, or in the process of adopting consensus for gathering.

References or links to this page should not describe it as "George".

Note: On 31 August, 2004, hard-banned user AdmN (talk · contribs) took it upon himself to excise exercise exorcise 10 signatures from this semi-policy, in violation of semi-policy. His doppleganger Func (talk · contribs) has now restored them, per hemidemisemiquaver-policy. Thank you. func(talk) 03:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This a proposed new policy. Note that since there is no consensus for this policy some users call this a Wikipedia:Semi-policy. It should be noted, there is no consensus regarding the nature of semi-policy, or what force, if any, it has within Wikipedia's day-to-day function.

It has been proposed that in the interim pre-consensus period, this semi-policy be rigorously enforced as an aid in consensus formulation. (Typographical exuberance added for greater clarity.) The period for comments on this proposal (that is, the second proposal, not the other one) is now open.

I have two questions

1. What is "semi-deletion"?
   1. You know when you use a poor quality rubber (eraser) on a thick pencil mark, and no matter how hard you rub a faint lines remains on the paper? Well semi deletion is nothing like that. Nor is is a partial deletion or any other understandable concept. It's more like a superposition of deleted and not deleted states that refuse to collapse. Imaging the entire universe splits into two parallel universes (well actually they are more at right angles than parallel but I didn't do the naming) In one unverse the page get's deleted, in another it's kept. Now rotate the universes back into one another so that everything lines up perfectly. There is now two of everything but we cant tell because the two Angelas occupy the exact same space. They are right on top of each other. The only thing that doesn't line up exactly is this page. In one universe it's deleted, in the other one it's kept, what's more it can't collapse in the normal way because rotating a whole univese tends to fuck up quantum mechanics. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten)
2. Who is Angela?
   1. There Is No Angela. (Which leads us to the question: Who the hell is Tina? )
   2. See below: Angela is the one more likely to prompt reactions in the style of Leslie Phillips (Ding Dong!) rather than in the style of Bill the Cat (sorry Jimbo but the boobs simply don't go with the beard :-)
   • Should I sign this comment? -- PaulHammond 00:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Newbie at large)

In a nutcase: Disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] may or may not be bad for you, but it could be. Don't push your luck. If you ignore the above advice then don't sign your comments.

Proposal

Disagreeing with Angela, hereafter referred to as [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] is not allowed. Although [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] can of course ignore dissenters, repeat offenders can be reported to her friends and repeatedly spanked. This has happened in some cases of users who frequently disagreed with her, even though they also agreed on other occasions.

A different approach is discussed here: Instead of resorting to drastic measures, or taking disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] for granted, why not just remove the signatures? This is a wiki, after all -- discussions on talk pages have disadvantages as opposed to bulletin boards, but they also have the advantage that everything can be, as they say, "mercilessly edited".

Refactoring instead of spanking

Letting disagreements with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] linger may well contribute to a clear argument climate, to discussion, and to users being encoraged to edit certain pages i.e. talk pages. It obscures the agreement and useful discussion in a morass of disagreement and counter-disagreement. By removing signatures [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] will not know who is disagreeing with her and so will become totally confused and disorientated. She won't be able to do anything about the disagreement!

Removing Sigs

When you want to remove signatures on article talk pages, you may want to start with your own. (But be careful to be one-sided to make yourself appear good and [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] bad.) Check backlinks to your user page to give a list of pages where you've signed your name - then remove it.

Of course, removing other people's sigs is not without controversy. But in the case of disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program], which disrupt the discussion climate on Wikipedia and make cooperation unnecessarily difficult, many users feel that such a slightly unusual step is justified.

Once you've removed your sigs and everyone elses from a page, the next logical step is to remove all indentation and other forms of formatting that's used to indicate when a different person has stated speaking. Remember the aim of this policy is to confuse. Remember - It's far easier to win arguments with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] when she is confused than when she is lucid.

Not signing when disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]

Once you've removed all your old sigs (and everyone elses who disagrees with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]) Don't think your work is done. Remember this semi policy is ongoing. Never sign your comments when you disagree with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]. If you feel that you are likely to forget not to sign when you disagree with her, then it's probably best not to sign your comments at all (even when you are agreeing). This last suggestion is only a suggestion though. It is not intendfed that you are not allowed to sign your comments when you*'re*[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] (signing since I am merely correcting the English and not agreeing or disagreeing with anything) agreeing with her - only when you are not.

I apologize in advance if this page offends [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]. My only defence is that it's her own fault for leaving a red link in Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks for 6 months! I can resist red links for a short period of time, but I can't resist for ever. My name is (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) Theresa Knott (The token star) and I'm a wikiaddict. signing to add the period at the end of TK's statement. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

Jimbola a.k.a. Angebo

File:Angelab vertical mirror.jpg

User has entered the Witness Protection Program

• Should any human-sexual persons find themselves tempted to disagree with User has entered the Witness Protection Program, they are strongly encouraged to first view this image:

• If he should be so silly as to still wish to disagree with her... he has a problem. ;-) EXCISED

• I disagree with this policy and I refuse to not sign my comment! - (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) - Tεxτurε 16:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with this policy, but can't work out whether that means I should sign or not -- (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) sannse (talk) 22:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• In my experience, disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] usually (though possibly not always) means I'm wrong. -- (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) Jmabel 00:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • That's the cool thing about this semi policy. When you agree with Angela - you're right - and it's great that people see who you are. But when you disagree, you're wrong.People will read what you wrote and think "what an idiot" But they won't know it's you because you didn't sign. Neat eh? Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 23:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I vote there should be a second version of [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]'s picture, mirrored, on the left hand side because it would look really spiffing. I am signing my comment because I agree with myself.
  • Bod - you really are missing the point. Obviously you agree with yourself! Clearly you are disagreeing with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program]'s choice of only uploading the one image of herself. She could have uploaded two versions, this one and a mirrored one- However she chose not to. So you are disagreeing with her, and for this reason I'm removing your sig. - (Signature removed in violation of United States bill H.S.ANGELA01 - viva la signature protest! - (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) Tεxτurε 16:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • You shouldn't take it for granted that I agree with myself. I frequently don't. Some people say there is medication I could be taking to ensure that I do, but that it cannot be taken with alcohol. Well, then, that rules that out. --(EXCISED...and then RESTORED) [[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 15:28, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• I vote there should be several more versions of this picture, showing the rest of [User has entered the Witness Protection Program], because that would look even more spiffing. I am not signing my comment because (a) I am afraid of TreesaKnottt; (b) I forgot the question; (c) I don't want my ant stroked, thanks; (d) I can't recall when I last disagreed with [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] but I like to plan ahead. Where do we sign up for membership of Angela Fandom?That's not too stalker-ish, is it?No, not at all snigger

• I agree with the proposal to start an Angela Fandom project. I am signing my name, but I agree to remove it if it turns out [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] disagrees with me. P.S. Phil, are you my sock puppet? ;-) EXCISED

• I think it's essential that [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] expresses an opinion on this policy, so that we can all work out whether we are disagreeing with her. If I write something that I know she disagrees with do I have to add my signature and then remove it, or is it OK to just leave it off? (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) DJ Clayworth 16:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC). Or not. As necessary.
  • She has already expressed an opinion. She said it was "interesting". Since I agree that it's interesting, I'm signing my comment.As for you second point - read the title of this semi-policy. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 23:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• [User has entered the Witness Protection Program] may or may not agree with this statement - (EXCISED...and then RESTORED) Tεxτ___

It isn't clear to me if this is the Witness Protection Program of the U.S., of Angela's own United Kingdom, or of some kind of ad hoc Wikipedian micronation, therefore, I refuse to sign my signature. AdmN 17:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you get noodles in tomato sauce instead of proper Carbonara on the Witness Protection Program, like at the end of a certain gangster film whose spoiler I shall protect? Because I'm not that fussy, but I quite fancy some noodles.

If we disagree with Theresa Knott, do we have to taste the korn? AdmN 02:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S. I feel bad about having removed everyone's signature... I really thought someone would revert it. I have decided to hard-ban my IP from this page for 24-hours.

Yes! You also have to stroke the ant and nate the stork. Note that Korn tastes pretty yucky. My advice is that you never disagree with me. If Angela disagrees with me she too will taste the Korn, but I in turn will have to remove my signature Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 12:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I choose to always agree with you, (which I'm planning to make my own personal semi-policy), will I be permitted to see more naked examples of your Paridae? AdmN 12:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh all right - just this once though. When the weather is really cold My tit's turn blue Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 13:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. I was wondering if I might interest you in a picture of my longfellow? AdmN 14:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL (I can't think of a funny reply)

I would just like to say that I disagree with all unsigned statements disagreeing with the user we must agree with but not name, unless said user agrees that some disagreements can be signed or if the set of all statements which disagree with all statements that agree with said user, are agreed to by said user, and with all statements that I agree with but have signed which violate the semi-agreed semi-policy which may or may not be agreed to by said semi-user but must I think violate the continuum hypothesis unsigned by Paul August 16:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Paul August you are too clever by half. However you're not quite clever enough. For you statement above can never violate the continuum hypothesis because we do not have an infinite number of semipolicies, and even if we did, they would always remain countable. What's more you cannot apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem because this policy was written by me not she who dare not speak her name. Therefore even if she were to agree that some users who disagree with her can sign their comments, they would still be in violation of this semi policy and so I would still remove their sigs. Of course I would be disagreeing with the nameless one so I would not be able to sign my edits as I did so. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 22:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I do not (emphasis added) like to disagree with The Theresa, who in theory should know whereof she speaks (and while I will not disagree with you know who) I must nevertheless point out that since each semi-policy implies axiomatically the implicit semi-policy that each semi-policy is in fact semi-policy, an infinite regress occurs. Further since some proposed policies will have insufficient support to attain semi-policy standing, and since it will be natural to refer to such proposed policies as semi-semi-policy, another infinite regress occurs. I will refrain from pointing out that an obvious diagonal argument where each semi-policy's semi-policy's ... semi-policy make up the rows, and each semi-semi ... semi-policy make up the columns, shows that the diagonal will be a new semi-policy not already listed therefore the set of all semi-policies is uncountable. That there is a cardinal number of semi-policies between the countably infinite, and the uncountably infinite semi-policies is left as an exercise for the student. Never to be signed by: Paul August 14:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm It would seem that you are in fact too clever by half and that I am the one who is not clever enough. However I am clever enough to see that you are right. Having said that you did disagree with me, so how did you like the Korn? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correction - you are wrong. The semi-semi-semi... policies do not form an infinite regression because votes are quantised and finite. The mininmun number of possible votes is 0 (it makes no sense to have negative votes) Thefore the process stops at no support whatsoever. I do not know how many semis it will get to get down to zero support but it will be finite. Thefore the sum of all possible semi/semi-semi/... remains countable. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I withdraw my oppose vote in this matter and withdraw unvoted future vote in this matter giving the oppose tally a -1 vote. - Tεxτurε 15:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I choose to vote the square root of Texture's vote. AdmN 15:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) And yes, I am still hard-banned from this page.

What? You've never heard of numbers between 0 and 1? You are unfamiliar with the concept of "almost support"? - I do not support such and such policy but I almost do. Surely such support deserves counting? I demand to have my almost vote and my "almost almost vote" and so on, duly counted under a semi-policy of semi-support, a policy which, I'll have you know, I almost support. I will not be almost semi-disenfrenchised! signed by: me

I usually work with numbers that are poorly approximated and rounded. If I were to vote for π, my vote would only be accurate to the 3rd decimal place. Fortunately, transcendental votes don't really count anyway, do they? AdmN 18:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But is Theresa Knott more like a semi-particle or a semi-wave? signed, SemI-AdmN

What's the difference ? Theresa Knott (stroke the ant)

I guess I have to ask whether Theresa is being observed for position or momentum. (If we clock her speed, does she disappear? If we find her footprints is she just a blur?) Or do we just wait for the cat to open the box and determine if Theresa exists or doesn't exist? - Tεxτurε 15:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of science, I would be willing to observe Theresa in various positions. Issues regarding momentum would be her choice. AdmN 15:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) OK, now I'm really hard-banning myself from this page!

Get your filthy paws off my pair of observables. I'm not the sort of girl to let a man collapse my wavefunction unless he at least buys me dinner first. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I ask only for the opportunity to examine your Hilbert space with my unitary operator. Dinner is fine, how does Carbonara sound? (I'm wondering why I haven't been hard-banned yet?) AdmN 20:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Carbonara sound nice (I was going to a a link to Spaghettification but I see we don't have an article on it. Now I'm going to have to write a stub! GRRR!!) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As math and science are not really my specialties, I am afraid that all I can offer you is spaghetti code, followed by a nice cup of Java. func(talk) 22:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<smile> If i'd have thought of it, I'd have used spaghetti code. But then we wouldn't now have a brand new stub. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Due to policy restrictions preventing me from reading your signature I am unable to determine what IP should be banned. - Tεxτurε 15:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This represents no problem, as you can simply ban all IPs eminating from Philadelphia. Whoops... I forgot I was banned.... AdmN 15:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Appendix A

While self-nomination is welcome, semi-policy suggests the use of a sock-puppet.

Users who agree with this policy:

If you don't fully agree but would like to vote a semi agreement please put a %

• Not the skater$-100e^{i\pi }\%$
• Fully agree. func(talk) 21:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) <-- a sock puppet of former user AdmN

Users who disagree with this policy

• Not the skater$\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {1}{n}}\%$

Users who agree with Angela that this policy is interesting

• Phil | Talk

Users who disagree with Angela and think this policy is "interesting":

remember, you can't actually sign... so just make an x.

• Angela.

I don't agree with the above user. x

I always agree with the user above the above user (you know who I mean) - Russell's paradox alert! - "Danger Will Robinson!", "Does not compute, does not compute ..." signed and unsigned by: [ ] <--- Warning: this box contains a superposition of signature and non-signature wave states - DO NOT COLLAPSE! me

Users who agree with Angela that this policy is interesting

• See below for why I voted here. the person whose username is 911cirE backwards <-- that is NOT a signature!

Users who disagree with Angela and think this policy is rather dull:

• Man, this is like, boring man! I mean, come on! Eri— wait a minute! I almost signed my name! Wait, if I'm worrying about this, doesn't that mean that I agree with the policy? Now you've got me semi-confused! Anyway I guess I better go change my vote...

Users in the Witness Protection Program with Angela:

feel free to use any alias provided by the program

• Carbonara
• Korn
• Focaccia
• Nate the Stork

Users who agree in some percentage with Angela:

Users who require advanced mathematics degrees to calculate their voting percentage:

• Phil | Talk
• Not the skater

Users who think that the mirrored Angelas are creepy

• dAmN User
• Lεx ⌊uthor

Users who think that the abuse of the apostrophe to form a plural is creepy

• Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Just the one with the beard. --Carbonara, too?

You mean the babe on the right???!

Users who had to fix the abuse of the apostrophe - even though that means the vote above no longer makes sense

• sannse (talk)

Users who feel somewhat disturbed about the fact this page still exists:

• Angela.

Semi-Abstain:

Comments:

• Great referendum. More fun than Rollback, and attracts a better class of idiot. Wanderer57
• I like the pictures. Can we have some more? x
• Sure, since we talk about semi-policy, a picture of a semi is surely relevant. another x

Users who have this article in their watchlist, and who wish it would change more often so they would have an excuse to read the whole thing over again and get a real chuckle

• Usual Tag Up
• f(x) 15:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Spelling Maid (spell yours?) 22:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who think Jimbo's concern about this page is funny

[02:54] <jwales> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theresa_knott/Those_who_disagree_with_Angela_must_not_sign_their_comments is this funny, or mean?

• And the answer is ? funny. Paul August 16:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Ana leg
  • LOL Where did he say that? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 16:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In a private message to me on IRC :) Angela. 02:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Users who aren't quite certain exactly what the Socrates is going on here

• not that that detracts at all, of course. --Carbonara, too?
  • Of coarse it doesn't detract. It shows that the policy is working - "Remember the aim of this policy is to confuse" Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who think having a picture of a semi directly on the page without a disclaimer at the top of the page is distasteful and entirely unnecessary.

• x
• It's just an in your face picture designed to shock. It doesn't even show any of the internal structure.I think the person who added this photo needs to be supervised for showing extremely poor judgement ;-) - Bob the king of scotland
• Listen, I have daughters!!! Do you think I want my daughters to see this pornography??? I also have sons, but that's beside the point, because I have daughters!!! If this image isn't removed from this page, I will seek legal action against the Cabal. My friends in the Court of Law in Trenton, New Jersey will Hear about This!!! Damn it, what's wrong with you people, I have daughters!!! Daddy.

Oh puhleeze! Get a grip!

Users who have just noticed the new picture of "Angela" and almost up-chucked all over their computer's monitor.

• Not The Tasker
• But jimbola is the most beutiful er thing you could lay your eyes on! Is chucking up a sympton of passion for you? (Like that kid in southpark?) Task the Knotter?
  • Angebo, should have been abandoned on a snowy mountaintop at birth. Ran The Test, OK? 18:06, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• I have serious concerns about the sanity of some people around here. This so called new picture shows nothing of Angela's head, but provides a full view of the male external faceitalia. I would support the deletion of the image on the basis that it does not depict Angela's head and probably is only there because of some puerile motivation to include explicit pics in Wikipedia. If the pic indeed displayed the Angela's head then it should stay. This one does not and should be removed. I propose a three day period where those who are so desperate to include a pic find one that actually dipicts Angela's head or the current pic gets deleted. This insanity must stop. - Robert the Troll
  • • I am sooooooooooo tempted to stick Angela's head on a circumcised penis here. But since Angela doesn't know the "debate" that's being referred to, she wouldn't see the funny side and so might be offended. So you'll just going to have to imagine the lovely image. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who are more just Wiki-addicted lurkers than active contributors but have read enough pages involving the people and subjects mentioned herein to be greatly amused by this page.

• エックス

Appendix B

The issue at hand is whether or not "the aim of this policy is to confuse". Please provide either an endorsement, a disendorsement, or a personal attack.

Vote ends π-Dec, 20010, Automatic Vote Counter: (1/0/0)

Those who endorse the confusion aim of this policy

1. I strongly endorse confusion in all Wikipedia policy. func(talk) 14:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Yeah! I vote here! Captain Bob 22:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those who disendorse the confusion aim of this policy

1. func is guilty of election fraud for starting this election. CheesyShoreZed
2. Yeah! I vote here! Master Funtano 22:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) Despite all appearance to the contrary, this is not a sockpuppet vote.

Those who undisendorse the confusion aim of this policy

1. My name is x, and I approve this message. And so does my sock puppet. Or...something like that.

Those who wish to engage in a personal attack

1. WHAT? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLLY THINK THAT I WANT TO PERSONEL ATTACK!!!!11 Hoola the Wizard, who is not Captain Bob or Master Funtano 22:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   1. Look you little Sh*t Don't use ALLCAPS! IT'S SHOUTING! If you didn't want to personal attack you wouldn't have put anything in this section. So don't come the innocent with me. I bet you aint even a wizard are you? Sad really sad ;-p Troll
      1. HOW DARE YOU accuse him/her of non-wizardry! What are you, some kind of CABALIST ?! ZedCheesyShorne
      2. Yeah! Down with the cabalists! PizzaSynergyElephant
         1. Who do you think you are calling me a cabalist! You dont call a Doctor a cabalist without consiquences. Everything you say is being recorded by a trusted third party. Withdraw you comment or I will see you in court. That's not a threat it's justice! quackmeister
            1. Greetings. It is noted that you are ignoring the POV defence of foreskin restoration in this vote. Suffice it to say that we are onto your game. My question to you is simple. If you are not able to contribute to this vote in an NPOV why do you not simply recuse yourself and just walk away? Knee jerk responses based on blind loyalty are not helpful. Methinks thou doth protest too much! So what I am asking you is to stop the pretence of neutrality, recuse yourself and get busy elsewhere. Will you not stop the pretence of neutrality? Of course you will not. The best we can hope for is that you desist from continuing in pushing a POV agenda. We can but hope. Amigos de Roberto Brooko, Le Bruce 15:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
               1. I for one am highly offended at the numerous pejorative references to sockpuppets on this page! User:Lamb_Chop
                  1. Oh you are such a sickpuppet! Charlie McCarthy
                  2. Of course you are, the truth hurts doesn't it? What's gotten into you? User:Charley_Horse
                     1. Quite a bit of Sonia Hurwitz's right arm as a matter of fact... you? User:Lamb_Chop
                        1. Most of the left one. User:Charley_Horse
                           1. OH yeah? User:Continued
                              1. Yeah! User:Fraction

$1+{\cfrac {1}{1+{\cfrac {1}{1+{\cfrac {1}{1+\,\cdots }}}}}}$

($\tau$ Golden!)

Those who wish to engage in an impersonal attack

1. To whom it may concern: YUO sUXX0RS!!!!. Signed, an indignant reader.
2. i eat poop.

Hmm the fact that you chose to disguise your sig by making it white leads me to suspect that you know something about Angela's views here. Perhaps she knows that you do not eat poop and so you are disagreeing here? Better safe than sorry I say. I'm going to remove your sig just in case I am right.

Those who would like some chicken right now:

1. (oh, please, don't let SineBot work his evil on me here...) Gladys J Cortez 33:15 20 Mar 2008 ...oops! Ignore that, please--nothing to see here...Gladys who? Never met 'er. If I see her I'll let her know you're looking for her, though....

In order to kick a dead horse

• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• — Ilyanep (Talk)
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• ~~
• ~
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

References

• August, P (2005). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Knott, T (2005). "User:Theresa knott". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Self-references

• Weys, Texture, Tagishsimon, Scooter, Sannse, Salix, A., Rmrfstar, Pedant, Mindspillage, LordShitzu, Knott, T., Jmabel, Guanaco, Fennec, Func, Fvw, Eric119, Clayworth, D.J., Boswell, P., Bodnotbod, Bellman, T., Bdesham, Angela, AdmN ; Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: "Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments", Wikimedia Foundation (2005)
• Me
• Vorobey, A, et al., Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: "Self-reference", Wikimedia Foundation (2005)
• Self
  • Self
  • Self
  • Self
  • Self
  • Self
  • Self
  • Self
• August, P.

Notes

^1 This will follow normal Wikipedia policy adoption process:

• There will be a one year voting period where anyone bored enough will add their name or the name of their favorite sock-puppet.
• A majority ("barely enough" or "nearly unanimous" depending on POV) will vote in favor of the policy and the minority ("lack of consensus" or "pack of puppets" depending on POV) will claim that the voting period was not long enough, not enough users voted, insufficient numbers of town criers were employed, and the sun was in their eyes.
• There will be a second two-week vote where the results will be disputed and a dozen alternatives ("oppose making it semi-known", "poll is querulous", "... will be the death of Wikipedia") will be voted.
• The policy tag will be added, deleted, added again, changed to "guideline", deleted again, lost, found, changed to "semi-guideline", folded, spindled, filled in triplicate, and buried in Jimbo's back yard.

^2 And now it is.

^3 However some scholars disagree, believing that such explanations are full of "horse shit aroma", see Knott, p 1

^4 This question has of course plagued philosophers and theologians for ages, some speculate that this refers to a cultural icon from the late 20th century.

^5 If a footnote has a footnote, is it called a "bunionpad"?

^6 Who ever said the alphabet was unidirectional?

^7 (This change was made with a time-delay edit. 1000 edits after the initiating edit, Mr. August will be returned to the first bullet. His interference with the development of policy (namely alphabet policy) resulted in an arbitration decree that he must remain more than 50 words from Texture for a period of 1000 edits.)