I do not know what top-posting is, so I can hardly stop it. I do not fall into either of your divisions. I edit Wikipedia first and foremost all right, but I do make negative comments about admins I dislike, though obviously I wouldn't call my comments acerebic and utterly ignorant. I also believe that posting my pesonal beliefs and convictions on my personal userpage does not harm the encyclopedia and if anyone else is offended by them they can bloody well go see a different page, I didn't invite them to look at mine. How would you or Jimbo categorise me in that case?

Molu

On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:55:22 +1000, Mark Gallagher wrote:

"G'day Molu,

[stop bloody top-posting, please]

So wikipedians like me who have (unsucessfully) supported the userboxes are all bad people just clogging up the system?

Well, that depends. I've never seen you on Wikipedia, TMK, so you're going to have to answer this one yourself. Let your conscience be your guide ...

Do you: a) Edit Wikipedia first and foremost, and very occasionally decorate your userpage as a fun diversion, or b) Edit userboxen first and foremost, turning your attentions to Wikipedia only to "vote" on TfD or DRV and make acerbic and utterly ignorant comments about hard-working admins? Do you resent the fact that people consider Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, even though the "anyone can edit" tag implies that if you want to treat it like MySpace no-one should be allowed to stop you?

If you answered 'a' to that one, then you're one of the unfortunate victims of the way the userbox situation was handled. If you answered 'b', seriously, fuck off and don't come back until you've re-adjusted your way of thinking about this project. Wikipedia is not a hosting service.