Daniel Mayer wrote:

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.

... 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?

I'm flattered that both Mav and Zoe should feel that they are the ones being attacked by Tannin. I have no problem admitting that I am the one who dared to pursue my disagreement. I also admit that I used the phrase "a liar's phony allegations" in a response to him 4 days ago, but let's put that quote in the context of his comments

...

This is an extraordinary thing to say when he is fresh back from - let's not put too fine a point on it here - unilaterial vandalisim on a major scale, even stooping to cut-and-paste page moves.

I will not be intimidated by a liar's phony allegations of vandalism

Although the cut-and-paste approach is sometimes the only technique available for making a move, and I would not hesiteate to use it when circumstances warrant, I can affirm that I did not use it in the course of this edit war. I was puzzled by Tannin's allegation, that a single incident of such an action should take on such importance

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 admit that the way I went about things may have been a little hasty, but when Tannin's more civil supporters suggested alternative approaches on this mailing list and on talk pages I have gone there, with my most comprehensive comments at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)]]. Tannin had previously contributed there but has added nothing since I entereded my comments, and now we're back here where he depends solely on a compromise which he believes to have been made. I had hoped that the silence was because Tannin was searching for rational support for his point of view.

Ever since this issue broke out, I've been more than usually conscious about how others treat the matter. I can cite two more publications that use lower case for the English names of fauna: "Scientific American" and "New Scientist". The latter, by the way, is a British publication.

I admit that I have not been recently active in the fauna articles, but from time to time I have done a few things. I actively differred with Mav on the issue of Latin vs. English names in the titles of fauna articles, and my opinions were expressed when the taxoboxes were bing developed. Lately I've been more preoccupied by other areas, but I'm sure that some day my mental drift will again lead me to the fauna.

Eclecticology