G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never
said it
did. One is a core
principle, the other is a page which, like many of
our policies, acts
only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially
acceptable language.
Now, there are multiple ways of making a point.
Some of them involve
being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of
those ways, as WP:POINT
makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain
yourself.
No, WP:DBAD uses unsuitably dickish language itself
and thus had to be removed to meta. In the hierarchy
Well, that's one interpretation.
its probably lower than {{proposed}}, though the
typically dickish citing of it would leave newbies to
believe otherwise. Please dont mistake casual
terseness for dickishness. I certainly dont.
It's an easy mistake to make. In any case, a campaign to add a category
you know is inappropriate to certain articles is hardly "casual
terseness"; it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and being a dick
besides.
<snip: okay/>
You think the
category is incompatible with NPOV. I
think you're right.
There are those, however, who do not (or who have
not considered the
issue, and gone along with the cat because it's
there). There are two
ways for you to get your way: you can either
convince them you're right,
or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're
not in much of a
position these days to do any face-grinding, so
we're just left with the
former option.
Dont make this personal. This seems to be a rarer
Fair enough. It wasn't really called for, was it? Bit childish of me,
there.
case, and this is why I brought it to the list. The
basic point is that "consensus" only works if its
overwhelmingly in one direction or another, and (as I
think Cobb was alluding to) AFD doesnt always work as
What Cobb was alluding to --- always and only --- is his inability to
get all fancruft deleted immediately.
a discussion forum. Where there are sharp divides
between actual consensus and NPOV, speaks to a deeper
issue of leadership with regard to NPOV, and this
relates to the problem of newbie indoctrination.
Fair enough.
The traditional
approach taken when trying to change
someone else's mind
is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best
state my message to
convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are
taking is, "your
opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so
stupid* as to disagree
with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious?
I'm disgusted with
the lot of you!"
I was simply stating my case in a clear and
incontrovertible way. I dont see the need to make an
argument weak just for sake of endless discussion with
those who hold to a relativist position, or to appease
those, who fail AGF and assume dickishness where there
is none. I dropped a note, to bring some attn to it.
What you see as "making an argument weak" I see as trying not to get
those you're trying to convince off-side.
Of course, I'm guilty of the same thing, here. I see someone say "why
are you too STUPID to disagree with me?", and I reply "that's obviously
a counter-productive approach. Why are you too STUPID to listen to my
alternative?"
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse