QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 28th May 2006, 3:01am)
OK, well, just to be very clear, I did not edit my post. I don't care that much about it, except that I don't want people to get the idea that I was being sneaky, or that I was trying to take back something I wrote.
Anyway, it looks to me like Phil's article is going to survive. It's horrifying. I would vote delete if I could, but they probably would block me for that. Rationally, article content on Phil shouldn't be regarded the same as user issues, but I suppose that argument would be "wikilawyering".
Yes, it is horrifying and laughable at the same time (although right now it seems to be leaning towards delete at 25k vs. 60d). Also, Phil's insistance on what he wants to focus on (see the talk page of the article and elsewhere) is slightly perplexing.
In some ways though it would suck to be Phil. The only real winner of this it seems is Wikipediareview as now that have to, at least indirectly, be mentioned in an article (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif).