"

Template discussion  TAB 
Getting a page is large message again, might be time to move some of this into an archive.  

Done.   TAB 

Don't remove the WPBio assessment tag, please.   TAB 

I will remove it, because your tasteless photo insults me, personally, and, in my opinion, insults Jack Vance. Also, I strongly disagree with your grading of this article in particular, and with your grading system in general. Keep your ""project"" away from this page, please.   TAB 

TO VANDALS RESTORING RACIST TAGS: please, cease and desist! All his life Jack Vance despised racially motivated concepts of multiculturalism and political correctness. He wrote books and stories revealing immoral ugliness and bigotry behind these artificial concepts. His page in Wikipedia is no place for imposing ideological propaganda of this sort. My actions are strictly within Wikipedia policies, don't try to throw a book at me, you'll catch it back. I have a right to remove these tags three times a day, and I will do this until the end of my days (which is a long, long wait). Deal with it: not everybody shares your prejudices.   TAB 

If you have a problem with the standard biography template posted above, take it up on the talk page of the template and do not disrupt this article with an edit war.   TAB 

 What good is that going to do? You guys (administrators, super-active Wikipedia addicts, template inventors, bored individuals, etc) seem hell-bent on converting Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia editable and readable by anyone, into some sort of esoteric cross-referenced morass of hypercomplexity. Every day I come to contribute to this admittedly well-intentioned website, there's some new template, some new project, some new policy (usually arcane and for the benefit of the person who quotes it), some new shortcut, some funkified userbar or some such. It's gone beyond a joke. The KISS principle pass you guys by, did it? You do know what you're succeeding at with all these shortcuts, templates and cross-references, don't you? You're turning people off from contributing by purposeful obfuscation.   TAB 

The place to argue this is on the template page or at the Village Pump, not one article out of thousands which use the template. Please use this page to discuss the Jack Vance article.   TAB 

 Until you came along, discussing the Jack Vance article was precisely what we were doing here. Hadn't you noticed?   TAB 

 Peter, I couldn't agree with you more. Computer gizmos in Wikipedia have become a plague. Editors are a close-knit, politically motivated group of PC types. In their view, personal recollections of a Gulag prisoner would be ""POV,"" while sunny reports on successes of Stalinism referenced to Pravda would be OK, ""published source."" What's most chilling, these guys are absolutely sure they know how to fix the world.   TAB 

 Gizmo. Is that what you are referring to? )    TAB 

 Looks like a small victory. At least, I don't have to pinch my nose every time I come here: racist PC photo is gone, Rhoads is gone. Now, it would be nice if those second-rate public school staffers with tons of time on their hands would remove their ugly tags altogether. Play with your tags in your sandboxes, boys and gorls, leave this page alone.   TAB 
 Let me ask you this: if you do, in fact, maintain ownership of this content about Jack Vance, and have such a high disregard for the goals of Wikipedia and the projects set forth to aid in achieving those goals, then why do you have any interest in having it on Wikipedia at all? Wouldn't it be easier to just set up your own website? If you want to control the content, surely an encyclopedia article with one page, licensed under the GFDL, thousands and thousands of editors, and policies and projects out of your control isn't the ideal place.    TAB 

 ""We"" don't ""own"" this page, Renesis13, and neither do you. Anyone may add, amend, refute, alter, etc, as per Wikipedia's charter. What I object to, and I'm sure I'm