Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 18 January 2008 (→break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WebHamster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #98

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arditi S.p.A

You didn't left me time to improuve the page, or to put the "hangon", and I don't think it is much less relevant than for example Calcomp, Guide Friday or Floform, only to cite a few. What is your advice? User:Miguelfms

December Newsletter, Issue III

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue III - December 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim. Greater Manchester Article News Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion. Monthly Challenges New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here. Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza. And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado

You left me a message some time ago about an article with the above title being deleted as insignificant. I am not really interested in playing the silly wiki games that go on here and as another admin put it, he is not interested in the subject and deleted it. Understand why wiki has problems raising money now?

As to what is the importance or significance of it. What is the importance of this article Church of Jesus Christ–Christian? It is/was a white supremacist church run by Wesley A. Swift.

So, lets apply the above to the deleted article on Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado. It was a christian identity school, aka the Rocky Mountain Kingdom Gospel Institue run by Kenneth Goff. Kenneth Goff is listed in the Encyclopedia of White Power, pg. 120.

Do not send me any more messages please (or ban me). I am no longer interested in wiki-politics and I am not interested in the lame reasonning that goes on from what appears to be mostly immature, college kid admins.

January Newsletter, Issue IV

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue IV - January 2008 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work! User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status! Greater Manchester Article News Since our last newsletter delivered by User:Rudget on 03 December 2007, our teamship has continued to bear fruit in the form of obtaining featured article status for Chat Moss (nom). User:Malleus Fatuarum has been heavily involved with this article and we thank him for his efforts! It's a great addition to our FA family! In addition to Chat Moss, Altrincham (nom) is a current featured article candidate, whilst Trafford is a recent good article candidate. Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others. Following a title change this month (from city-wide to county-wide per this discussion) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester has been one of the project's successes, albeit unofficially, with good collaboration and rapid rates of development. It is hoped by several users that this become a featured list in the short term. If you think you can help with images, information or just filling in the dead links, please feel free to join in! Simillar articles to undergo large transformation are List of churches in Greater Manchester, Kersal Moor and List of railway stations in Manchester, all of which are now in good shape. Current Debates There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members. Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%! Other debates have included the notability and verifiability of Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships and its mention on the Ramsbottom article. Whilst on Shaw and Crompton, one of our featured articles, questions have been raised as to what constitutes a "town". If you have any veiws on these matters, please feel free to share them at the project talk page. Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!). Monthly Challenges As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham. Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so! We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page. Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Created by Jza84 based on a template by Rudget | Single-Page View

Article about The Curve (shopping mall)

Why are you deleting my article, The Curve (shopping mall) that I created. It is totally not fake and it is a real shopping mall. - Tee Meng 9:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing, if you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, Tee Meng (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Winnie Mariama Forewa

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Winnie Mariama Forewa. The reason is:

the beauty queen of any country is significant, although not necessarily notable

If you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating speedy deletion postings

Please don't do that. If an admin takes down a speedy notice, you should just accept that the article has been reviewed. William H. Osborne is CEO of a large company, and that should be treated as an assertion of notability. You can take it to AfD if you must. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist

I'm not gonna post this on the debate page because it's unnecessarily inflammatory, but I thought you'd enjoy it. I thought of it when the subject of "natives" and "Americans" came up:

This user supports the US troops in the lands of dark-skinned people.

--MQDuck (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. The depressing thisg is that there are editors here who wouldn't see anything wrong in it :( --WebHamster 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I'd dearly love to include it in one of the userbox lists but, after all this, it would be an incredibly thing to do.

Anyway, it seems to me that a consensus is being reached on the issue. It's been about 19 hours since The Other Side made an argument. I don't think it's my place to suggest the discussion be closed - and it would probably be smart if you're not the one to close it - but at what point is a consensus considered to be reached? If we can make that happen soon, how do we do it?

(Oh, and I thought your "oil in Texas" comment was brilliant. It works in at least two ways. British humor - sorry, humour (rhymes with "hour" (sounds like "how're"?)?)?) --MQDuck 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr..

Did you see why this was removed? Do you honestly think we're better off with it than without it? Friday (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, nevermind. Good call. Friday (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Please withdraw it yourself, now . This is not helpful--in fact, from your point of view, it might be seen as counterproductive.DGG (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got no chance of me withdrawing it. Unless of course the Iraq resistance one is kept, in which case maintaining non-bias demands I withdraw it. But not until then. It's only one day. Meanwhile are you telling me that the MfD is against the rules or inappropriate? --WebHamster 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i closed it to avoid confusion. Wait until the other MfD is closed, one way or the other. Don't you see that WP:POINT is relevant, and is going to risk losing sympathy for your position? Personally, even then, perhaps you can find some even more militaristic box to start with. Email me for further explanation if you like. DGG (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading on a related MfD that even if WP:POINT is relevant it doesn't detract from the fact that it is also a valid reason. WP:POINT doesn't cancel that reason out. As regards my own personal position I'd rather keep that to myself as I don't want my own POV to interfere, but I have no problem with it going either way. If one goes they both go (and others) if one stays the other stays (and others). If one stays and one goes then I shall kick up holy hell (within the rules of course). --WebHamster 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to take this away from the MfD.

"Go lecture someone else" -- Was that really necessary? We on Misplaced Pages tend to correct each other when in violation of policy. You asked someone a ridiculously unfaithful and incivil question. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "don't make assumptions". It means you definitely SHOULD ASSUME -- and assume GOOD faith, at that. So when you ask someone if they have an ulterior motive in making a comment, you are in violation of WP:AGF, because you are failing to make the assumption of good faith. I hope this makes things clearer. And telling me not to lecture you doesn't do anything, because again, there are no policemen on Misplaced Pages, so we each do our part to keep each other under control. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, lecturing. I don't appreciate it and I shall remind you of it every time you do it. Now, it's about time we get onto YOU assuming good faith. You immediately assumed bad faith when I asked the question. There's nothing worse than being lectured by a hypocrite. I told you why I ask, you assumed bad faith on that too. Now I'd appreciate it if you took your piousness and shove it where the monkey shoves his nuts. It's not wanted, it's not welcome and it's not necessary. I've been on WP long enough to know what is an isn't right, I've been on the planet long enough to know what is and isn't right. At this late juncture I don't need you to come along and arrogantly explain it to me. --WebHamster 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Telling someone to shove things anywhere is hardly fostering an attitude of collaboration. Please try to be more civil in your comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's additional orifice space available for your lecture too. --WebHamster 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WebHamster, regarding the Wikiquette item about you, the aggregate of evidence so far seems to be that yes, you are being persistently uncivil. If you are banned or blocked for incivility your purposes defending the truth as you see it will not be served. If you think you are being unfairly singled out or that the evidence is misleading somehow, please respond at the wikiquette item. Otherwise, please reconsider the utility of an angry tone. As to lecturing, it's wiki policy that we inform newcomers of policy violations before acting on those violations. The culture here tends towards patience, so even people with long histories of getting banned and blocked, and are hardly newcomers, get those lectures too. On the whole it's better than summary banishment; at least you get a chance to reply. Pete St.John (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am neither new here nor have a long history of being blocked, in fact I've never been blocked. But to be perfectly frank I'd rather be blocked than lectured by a thin-skinned, holier-than-thou prissy who just got his ass kicked in a debate. I know the rules, I don't need anyone to patronise me and lecture me about them. As for persistent, well someone has a low threshold if that is classed as persistent. Likewise I notice the diffs quoted on ANI and various other places. I also noticed the BS that went with them. I have no intention of joining in the Wikiquette debate. I fthey want to block me then they'll block me. That's the only thing that will come out of that RfC. If a drummer from New York wants to feel that he's got one over on me and had the last laugh then let him, it's of no concern to me. I am what I am and that's how I intend to be. I rather doubt it'll end up in a community ban, the worst they can do is block. So I take some time off, big deal. I'd rather take the block than cow-tow to some pillock who doesn't like losing. Please also note that I don't take the first shot, I only respond in certain ways to certain stimulus. --WebHamster 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not concerned at all about your ability to defend yourself verbally. And certainly your language is by my standards merely colorful and ascerbic; but I advocate varying our vocabulary for context: for example, your uppercut may be deadly but unsuitable when boxing a jockey. Incidentally, I had meant "new" and "blocked many times" to bracket a long range of experience levels; I hadn't meant to judge your own, I haven't looked at your contrib hist, and visiting the discussion of the userbox in question looks as fun as shoving the gorilla's coconuts in the spider-monkey's orifice. However, if you'd care to link the specific source of the conflict in this case, I'd go look. Pete St.John (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the guy from Adam, my only experience of him was at the recent Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist discussion. The funny thing is that he has such self-importance he appears to believe that all my shots were aimed at him. They weren't, most were general and the really obvious ones were at really obvious targets. Mr Hooyah-"I'm gonna be a marine" for one. Frankly I don't give a flying frisbee what is said about me or because of me. I believe in WP:SPADE both because of upbringing and because of hardwiring. As for the not assuming good faith. Yes he's right I don't. Anybody who automatically and unquestioningly assumes good faith is too naive to breath air. Accordingly I ask and then base my good or bad faith on the answer. It's much simpler and accurate (for people like me) that way. Incidentally there were also accusations that I was throwing my POV around. Well now that discussion is closed I can admit that I don't believe in Iraqis showing resistance, but I do believe in MQDuck's right to say that it's his belief in a userbox. This is why I get royally pissed at narrow-minded idiots who can only see their own views as important. --WebHamster 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to err on the side of freedom of speech too; however, there are cases that are too difficult for me. For example, since some Wiki servers are in the U.S. (or the U.K. for that matter), advocating armed resistance in Iraq could, hypothetically, be construed in a court as treason. Which if it happened would very much sidetrack the humor value in the discussion. So I would consider the matter a tricky legal one (RL law), and would consider flame-baiting to detract from determining a possibly urgent result. Also, a kid who wants to be a Marine-- or Royal Marine-- is facing the imminent possibility of dying violently, so I'd have a measure of sympathy for his (over-)reaction. Of course you are right about Assuming Good Faith; I myself interpret the Policy to mean not that we actually believe they have good faith (which would be credulous) but to act as if, temporarily. Pete St.John (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That was the point, the UBX wasn't advocating armed resistance. It was advocating resistance. Armed resistance is only one of many ways to resist an occupying force. Accordingly it didn't breach any world laws or wiki rules. In fact it's inherent in international and human rights laws that it is a citizen's right to oppose occupation of his country by another country. It's still debatable whether or not the Iraq war is legal anyway. Regardless, my comments on that discussion were primarily about the userbox. My responses to "blind patriotism" are part of the record and were in response to others' POV remarks. I didn't start it, I damn well tried to finish it though. I'm just sick to death of the systemic bias pervading WP, most of it is right-wing US-centric and occasionally it gets to me. The discussion did just that. As far as I'm concerned it's now over and I haven't commented on it anywhere else (apart from a statement and a question on the resulting userbox RfC), but apparently Equazcion (talk · contribs) doesn't want to let it lie, presumably as he didn't get his own way and wasn't spoken to with the deference he thought he should have been. In my world respect is earned, not given. All he earned was my disrespect and I spoke accordingly. That disrespect is increasing after seeing his Uriah Heep impression on ANI and WQA. The upshot is that I have no interest in what he has to say about me and I certainly have no intention of wasting my time responding to him on it. If people can't figure out what he's doing then that's up to them. The people who can figure it out don't need my help so all in all it's pointless. --WebHamster 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

break

My mistake; I had mistaken the frequent references to "incursion" for the wording the userbox ("resistance"). But let's consider the following, which I've unindented:

I looked at the discussion page and got this far:

<from the discussion page in question> The keepers want to keep it because they agree with it, so that wouldn't be great rationale either. I think people are mistaking this as a battle of views, but it really isn't. At least not for me. I can't possibly condone a userbox that supports the intentional killing of American troops. But that doesn't mean that if someone made a similar complaint about any number of the pro-US userboxes that I wouldn't also support a delete. I would probably disagree with the insinuated meaning, but I would be fine getting rid of them if they mean something "bad" to someone else. Basically, just because this box gets deleted (and it will), doesn't mean you can't nominate these other boxes for deletion that you say justify this one's existence. So to borrow the words of Misza, if your argument is that othercrapexists, then feel free to deletetheothercrap too. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:49, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's not a question of WP:WAX, it's a question of bias. For some reason it's perfectly okay to have a pro-American soldier in Iraq userbox which is to all intents and purposes (based on your criteria above) supporting the killing of Iraqis, but surprise surprise it's seemingly not okay the other way round. So the crux of the matter is if you delete one side then you have to delete the other. Nah, fuck it, let's just delete all userboxes and then there's no argument is there? But back in the real world the genie's already been let out of the bottle. Now it's damage limitation, but you cannot have one rule for one and then another rule for another. And just to give some perspective just how many Iraqi's have been killed in their own country compared to US & UK soldiers in some bugger else's? --WebHamster 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. --WebHamster 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd care to clarify your point then I'd be willing to try and understand it, but I'm getting tired of these comments. Either participate constructively in the discussion or kindly leave it to those who are willing to do so. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What tires you is of no concern to me. My comments and my participation are not mutually exclusive. It's an exceedingly easy point to grasp which is why I presumed you being obtuse...

<cut>

The answer you gave, contrasting putatively acceptable vs putatively unacceptable userboxes, effectively asks what wiki policy distinguishes them (you claim, none, right?). My sense is that Equazcion's failure to get the point is disengenuous; do you need to be more specific in your point, or does Equazcion need to be more specific in his criticism? What doesn't he understand about it? There is an eristic rhetorical device, much loved by wikilegalists, to simply ignore or fail to understand your point. However, your rejoinder, the sarcasm "doesn't surprise" then "you being obtuse" doesn't show them up. For example, you could restate your point to be more wikilegalistic, e.g.:

What wiki policy allows <this> but not <that>? I claim that these userboxes are indistinguishable in terms of wikipolicy.

Then if they still don't get your point (or pretend not to), you don't have to label them as obtuse, because they plainly are. But as the discussion stood at this point, it's not certain to me that Equazcion is merely stupid (which I doubt anyway) or even that he is being deliberately obtuse; maybe just your expression of the point is not so clearly worded (I'm not sure myself that I've reworded it fairly) and maybe he got exasperated quickly by your language.

My sense, up to the point I read, is that you were unnecessarily exacerbating the heat/light ratio with sharp language. Not all of your opponents seemed all that stupid to me. Personally, I think too many expect too much from CIVIL, but I support the goal. Pete St.John (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to think in black and white (or logical vs non-logical if you will) so I communicate in black and white too. I use the words that I find most efficient. Most of the time I find words that simultaneously communicate what I'm saying, what I'm thinking and what I'm feeling. Tact is not part of my coding, it never has been and I rather doubt it ever will be. I say what needs (from my perspective) saying. I'm a great believer in "don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer". Likewise if someone like whatsisname wants to take part in a discussion and then chooses to be disingenuous, which was exactly what I thought and was why I responded in such a way, then he should be prepared to have the cowcake passed back to him without any air-freshener. I've honed my debating skills with 15 years of Usenet experience so I've learned from the best <g>. To me uncivil only counts if it's undeserved. He deserved what he got so in my eyes it was not uncivil. The upshot being if no-one shoots at me then I don't shoot back. --WebHamster 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to chime in here on a couple things. The statement to which I responded with "I have no idea what your point is," was a statement that I genuinely did not understand. I'm not the type of person to give a flip general answer just to make it more difficult for the other person to respond. I just really didn't get it. I added one more pre-comment to the pasted discussion above, so take a look there. The user responded by first denouncing my biased attitude, when I had just said I was willing to delete userboxes of the opposite POV as well. He actually backed up the bias argument by pointing out my willingness to delete all userboxes on both sides, which didn't make any sense to me. Then he says again "you can not have one rule for one and another rule for the other", which is what I already conceded to in saying get rid of all of them. He then said something about how many Iraqis were killed vs US troops, which I just ignored altogether. I didn't understand the statement then and I don't understand it now, and maybe that's my fault somehow, but the point is that my claim of confusion was most genuine, and I wasn't going to post a paragraph like this explaining why during an MfD.
  • Also, to answer WebHamster's concern that I'm doing this just because I didn't "get my way": I filed the WQA because I was about to endure another heavy discussion that he was now also participating in (the RfC, as opposed to the MfD), and wanted to prevent further flareups. I found his comments disruptive at the MfD and was seeking to prevent such behavior at RfC, so at the first sign of it I gathered up evidence and filed my report. This was a preventative measure, not a reprisal.
  • One more thing: WebHamster's defenses here seem to be a denouncement of policy. Civility doesn't just count sometimes, when you feel like it, or only when you think it's deserved. It counts all the time, along with assuming good faith and no personal attacks. If this weren't true, then "he started it" would be a valid argument, and Misplaced Pages would fall into a pit of childish despair. If you choose to make up your own stipulations for these policies, that doesn't defend your actions at all, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Your defenses seem to stem from the viewpoint that real-world morality is all that matters, even here, despite the fact that we have extra rules governing what goes on within this site. So you either don't understand how Misplaced Pages works or you openly have no respect for Misplaced Pages's rules. It seems to be the latter, but if it's the former, please let someone know so that things can be clarified for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:31, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I've changed the format somewhat, to look more like threaded discussions, instead of the "endorse/oppose summaries" format. You're welcome to refactor your comments. Thanks- Mtmelendez 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)