On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> That is: Gracenotes referred to BADSITES, and
SlimVirgin opposed
> because he failed to oppose all links in any circumstances.
I opposed to begin with because Gracenotes posted to
Wikipedia Review
in opposition to these sites being placed on the spam blacklist, and
then wrote in response to Q4: "I suppose you mean attack sites as
those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without
the intent of improving Wikipedia."
That wasn't what I meant, it wasn't what the ArbCom said, and all
these sites claim they intend to improve Wikipedia, so by that
definition, there are no attack sites. I then also opposed because of
the bot approval issue, the unclear answers, the inflated edit count
from the automated script, and the low talk page participation.
Complete text of your oppose: "Strong oppose. I have to oppose
based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel
that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked
to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would
ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"
That looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES, and BADSITES was
referenced by that name in Gracenotes' answer which you referred to in
your oppose.
That is: your question, his answer and your oppose, and all the oppose
!votes saying "Per SlimVirgin", are where I get my strange
misconception that this was all about BADSITES. I wonder how I could
have come to that conclusion. I must have been reading what you wrote
on the RFA.
- d.