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