[Foundation-l] Conflict resolution on meta Wikimedia

[Nicholas Knight]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
> 
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>
>>> Christiaan,
>>> It is one thing to split articles into two, it is another to castrate 
>>> the talk pages and move all things that are not to your liking 
>>> elsewhere. Your right to ask for a method to have mechanisms into the 
>>> mediawiki software is equal to my right to have an angst of this 
>>> first step of introducing censorship into our projects.
>>
>>
>>
>> THERE. IS. NO. CENSORSHIP.
>>
> No need to shout and yes we disagree on that one. The way you lot have 
> been trampling on my views on this has the hallmarks of censorship. Yes, 
> in my opinion this proposal is about censorship.
> 
>>> *Your proposal will make it mandatory to allow for 
>>> tags/categorisations so that censorship will work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our proposal will make it POSSIBLE for categories to be used by 
>> END-USERS to CHOOSE what they wish to see.
> 
> 
> We disagree on this one. For it is not only end users that will choose. 
> Read your own proposal point 4.

I don't even know what that's doing there or who added it. I'm removing 
it now. This proposal has never had anything to do with proxies or IP 
ranges. Even if that was part of the goal, it would be a technical 
nightmare and would not get the parties implementing such filters 
anything close to what they want.

>>> *Your original article title was End-user content suppression and 
>>> decided that this was not "good" renamed it to image suppression
>>
>>
>>
>> Because the focus was and has always been on images. Whether like 
>> measures need to be taken for text is a different discussion.
> 
> 
> Technically it is not different so why should it be a different 
> discussion ?

It is different both philisophically and technically. The code used to 
defer images will not be usable for entire articles.

>>> *There has already been one anonymous coward asking for using your 
>>> censoring mechanism for content.
>>
>>
>>
>> What?
> 
> 
> Right, it is a straw mans argument that one thing leads to the next. 

You're still not making sense.

> Read the history if you can still find what was said. It is there.

You brought it up, you point me to it.

<snip strange rantings about meta>

>> Constructive criticism is always welcome. Blanket false statements are 
>> not.
>>
> Your idea of what is true and false is coloured by where you stand, 
> where you are from. Your truth is just that. Making me out for a liar 
> and being not constructive is well, not friendly to say the least.

I don't feel very friendly toward someone that can't articulate 
themselves but insists they're right.