On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.