On 1/3/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:20, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
No, since when has attaching 'Nazi' to something been an acceptable
way to
argue? Don't quote Seinfeld to me. I'm not American, I don't watch it.
That
goes also for others on the list. You 'come on'. Stop being an
ethnocentric
jerk.
Oh, grow up.
It was funny. And appropriate.
If you're that thin-skinned that you find it upsetting, then you DESERVE
to be
upset.
Actually, it wasn't funny. It wasn't even a joke, as far as I can see. It wss intended to re-open the old deletionist-inclusionist schism.
Schism? Wow. I didn't realize we were getting to religious levels here. Bogdan's post was a bit, I felt, overblown about the inclusion of webcomics, websites, and other web content in Wikipedia.
The Cunctator, having been a face of some eminence on enWP in the early
days, pops up here again.
Well, thank you. I'm not sure "eminence" is a word anyone would ever use to describe my face, though.
Welcome back, I say;
I didn't realize I had left.
but please don't assume we're in the same timewarp as you.
Just a jump to the left....[1]
Matters such as reliable sourcing for articles are not now regarded as
optional: we are more sensitive on the issue. Someone who posts here on the topic of unsourced articles about websites might expect a reasoned argument, in line with the current policies, rather than that.
The topic wasn't unsourced articles about websites, if I remember correctly. Bogdan's complaint is primarily one of notability, I believe. There's also been quite a reasonable discussion about the definition of an acceptable source.
Furthermore Godwin's Law applies: call someone a Nazi, you LOSE the
argument.
That's not Godwin's Law.
--tc
[1] Obligatory ethnocentric American pop-cultural reference.