On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:27:08 -0500, "Stephanie M. Clarkson"
<thespian(a)sleepingcat.com> wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> False. I said it was trolling, not that you are a troll. Continuing
> to post an inflammatory interpretation that has been contradicted by
> someone who has more knowledge of the situation than you have, is
> trolling.
Because "I know more about this, so trust
me." has worked so well in
the past. You've said, 'No, you're wrong!' and seem to be thinking
that that is enough argument/contradiction to make him feel
everything is ok, then. It doesn't and *shouldn't* work that way.
Not really, no. If Alec were to ask, rather than assert form
suspicions founded in ill-faith, then I would be more than happy to
tell him. Actually, looking back, I *have* told him, he simply
refuses to believe me. I can't fix that, sorry.
Guy, the attitude you're pushing here is *exactly*
what has ticked
off Alec, and had myself (in the RFC) and Bryan (on the list)
ruminating that WP:V should apply to every part of Wikipedia
decision making.
You are working from a false premise. This was not Wikipedia
decision making. It was a group of people discussing how they might
fix a problem.
If we had used Wikipedia Review for our bitching and moaning, would
we now be portrayed as the good guys? It seems to me that people
are being penalised for trying to sit back and think.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG