Tannin wrote:
What I posted just now was a DEFENCE against the personal attack made on me. And you will note that despite considerable provocation, at no point did I attack the person who attacked me, simply reported his actions factually in the most unemotional way I could.
Oh? What do you call this:
... with a non-contributor who's behaviour in this matter has been appalling.
"Non-contributor" is not a nice label.
....the same objector who recently suddenly took it upon himself to start a single-handed campaign of what can only be described as vandalism
By direct implication you are labling somebody a vandal - again something that is not in line with the principle of WikiLove.
... and an objector who practically never bothers to contribute anything to the fauna articles in any case, just talks about them at great length, and wastes enormous amounts of the time of the people who *are* doing the work, and causes a great deal of genuine distress to useful contributors.
So by direct implication you are stating that this person (me I guess) is not a useful contributor?
Pardon me but your statement to Zoe that she is blaming the victim seems rather disingenuous to me after a read of the above comments by you.
Now instead of more self-righteous indignation how about you list the people who agreed to the compromise and then offer evidence to support the capitalization of mammals? I for one quickly dropped my support for extending the bird capitalization rules to mammals after it was made clear to me that this is not a standard practice (for some time afterwards I was shell-shocked from the whole incident - like Zoe - and then I went on vacation).
Do you have logical arguments to back-up this extension or just more hyperbole?
I guess I have to admit that your scare tactic of threatening to leave the project over this issue did prompt me to draft the compromise. I won't make that mistake again.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)