G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy
Well, that's one interpretation.
its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
It's an easy mistake to make. In any case, a campaign to add a category you know is inappropriate to certain articles is hardly "casual terseness"; it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and being a dick besides.
<snip: okay/>
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer
Fair enough. It wasn't really called for, was it? Bit childish of me, there.
case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The basic point is that "consensus" only works if its overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as
What Cobb was alluding to --- always and only --- is his inability to get all fancruft deleted immediately.
a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
Fair enough.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
What you see as "making an argument weak" I see as trying not to get those you're trying to convince off-side.
Of course, I'm guilty of the same thing, here. I see someone say "why are you too STUPID to disagree with me?", and I reply "that's obviously a counter-productive approach. Why are you too STUPID to listen to my alternative?"