On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span
style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font
color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|nen]]<sup>[[User
talk:Cuivienen|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cuivienen|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cuivienen|@]]</font></sup></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[30 May]] [[2006]] at 20:54 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
Now *that* is what I call "taking the piss".
Ok, I see your point on that one. Wow. LOL
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the ones that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection on Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages and one new pages, you should follow whatever spelling you prefer. But on established pages you should put your own spelling preferences aside and follow the established spelling. Since this is a userbox which attacks one of the most basic compromises that allow the project to function, aren't these the real problem? I couldn't care less if people want to declare what political party they support or their opinion is on fox hunting - but something which says "I don't support the spirit of compromise that Wikipedia depends on"...those userboxes piss me off, even though I have strong feelings on the issue of spelling (I was unhappy that I had to write my dissertation using AE spelling, but I got over it quite quickly).
Ian