At 07:37 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
I'm with Fred here. I just don't get what the point of this is. I've tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm, I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or politically charged, or anything.
The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk: may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such an otherwise trivial matter.