Hey Kosh. There are so many issue with that statement that I felt it important to drop by.
policy should be enforced as written - from a high level WP:POLEMIC is a guideline and WP:NOTBURO is policy. The principle is what matters, not exact wording of the rules. Disputes are solved by discussion, not strict adherence to the rules. Does that make sense? The "rules" are just a description of what's happened before and likely will happen again... generally the right thing to do, but not be followed blindly. No matter whether you're right or wrong on the underlying issue, not understanding this fundamental principle is the reason you are blocked.
So, on to the underlying issue. Is the content on [ name redacted here only ] page in violation of POLEMIC? Honestly, I'd say no. POLEMIC in bold refers to Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing. Is what he's saying offensive? Barely. Very divisive? Not really. AND it's related to encyclopedic editing. It just doesn't fit in that section. It's not targeted at individuals or a specific group, let alone attacking or vilifying them. It's not a pre-meditated nasty attack, it's a person ranting on their way out the door. I don't agree with a word of it, but it's important to let people express themselves in situations like that.
Considering that my edit spoke of the fact that Tullian has publicly debated other with regards to his views, and the links I referenced go DIRECTLY to those debates, there should not be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaptistBolt (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 May 2013
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
let me spit in the face of that filthy bastard.. he deserves it!
read the title.
Talkback
Hello, KoshVorlon. You have new messages at Jersey92's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Splits
Master KoshVarlon, I didn't think that my splittings would become such a big deal. I made such splits on R.A. Salvatore, Stephen Donaldson, Robert Jordan, just to name a few, and didn't imagine that I would be bullied and shouted around, because there aren't that many users who patrol the talk pages, so I decided to be bold and split them. The user who has reported me is not a bad person, but I think this is just diminiutive and disparaging, concerning my lengthy experience, working here on Wikipedia, and also it is delay for the work on these articles. I beg you not to block me, because in fact, I intend to continue such work and splits of lengthy bibliographies and in fact to be more uncompromising with the user who reported me, because I kind of look at the whole matter more as a "cavil retail" than a serious Wikipedia matter.
