I see. I understand I shouldn't do that, and can promise I never will, but I must point out that I wasn't doing it at this time. Deleting all that stuff was necessary according
to the TRS decision. My own suggestion had been that nothing should be removed. Please hear me out.
had lots of examples that didn't belong there because they didn't fit the definition. I started a TRS thread
because I didn't
want them all just removed. The action I suggested was to broaden the definition so that they could be kept. (See post 29
for how I would have changed the page.)
This suggestion was not accepted; Fast Eddie rewrote the trope so that it remained almost the same thing it had been (see post 63
), and that was declared the official new definition (65-66).
This meant that a majority (or at least a huge minority) of all the examples on the page were still wrong. Hence, I was not unilaterally acting against the decision arrived at at TRS when I started removing them. I was acting in accordance with the decision. Unless it takes a separate resolution to start removing incorrect examples, but as far as I could see, it was implicit that it would be necessary to do it.
(I was also putting the examples I removed in a new YKTTW
, something I didn't think needed discussion on that TRS thread, since it was about a new trope, not Hannibal Lecture
. This, in case you were wondering, also accounts for my enthusiasm to start making massive edits that were contrary to what I had wanted done.)
I now understand what you thought I was doing, but according to the TRS decision and the definition of the trope settled on, all those examples should in fact be cut. Hannibal Lecture
was and is about a bad guy turning the tables on an interrogator, and the page is full of examples where there's nothing like interrogation going on.
Oh, and now that I know why I have been blocked, and I hope this clears it up, I can ask, may I edit again?
edited 3rd Jan '12 3:56:07 PM by VVK