On 8/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>
> 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
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
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: