Tony Wilson wrote:

Eclecticology manages, somehow, to thow in the phrase "is completely contrary to any spirit of compromise" to a post above.

My reference to a "spirit of compromise" was in response to a claim that the encyclopedia must be a compromise which was immediately followed by an attempted bully tactic to achieve such a compromise;

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

Mate, there is ALREADY a well-established compromise, has been for quite some time, which, although it is not by any means completely satisfactory to me or to many of the other fauna people, has been honoured by everybody except YOU.

As far as I'm concerned, the only compromise is that alternate forms should have redirects. John suggested that I bring the issue to the mailing list for further discussion, and I have. Now Tannin rests on his laurels and seeks to extrapolate a position beloved by amateur birders onto all sorts of fauna. Instead of considering citations that I have drawn from style manuals and other sources (including ones contrary to my position), he prefers to ignore these and rely solely on his own empirical observations of birding manuals. He has not cited a single style manual, or rule from any zoological society to back his position The strongest clear citation in favour of his POV was my own from the American Ornithological Union, and it applies only to birds. Linking this argument to the American/British English issue is provocative trolling.

Perhaps Tannin needs a lesson in scientific method. He hypothesizes that capitalization is a standard practice. I have disproved this hypothesis with several counterexamples. Time to reformulate the hypothesis.

An anon or a newbie who behaved as you did the other day would have had his IP blocked immediately.

Hmmm! A threat by innuendo.

So please don't insult people like Jim - who, by the way, has done far more work on fauna than you ever will, and who has behaved with decency throughout - by bandying that "compromise" word around as if it was your own invention, and as if you you were willing to abide by the terms of the compromise which you knew all about the whole time.

I did not initiate the use of the word compromise in that part of the exchange; see my first comment in this post. It would be beneath me to engage in a match of braggadocio about my contributions to Wikipedia in the way that Tannin suggests. From the posts that I have read, I think that Jim is quite capable of defending himself without Tannin's officiously sanctimonious help.

The fauna pages were an area of the 'pedia where there was no longer any contention, and no ill-feeling. Until your unilaterial "I don't care about the consensus, I'm going to do it my way" decision the other day, it was an area where everybody was working together happily and productively. Now, PLEASE, get out of the road and let those of us who are doing the work *do* the work.

Do look in a mirror. Did Tannin not notice that because of conflicting authorities, I chose to leave the bird pages alone. There's more than enough to correct in the mammalian and other fauna that I can wait until I have strongerauthorities before I do anything to the birds. I guess he just chose not to read that point. It might have hndered his tantrum of self-righteous indignation. Nobody has been in your road, Tannin.. Go ahead with your work; just stop whinging about about my corrections.

Ec