On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:27:08 -0500, "Stephanie M. Clarkson" thespian@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)