User:Manning Bartlett/More old comments

Welcome back, Manning! --Zundark, 2001 Nov 3

Did you say you could chat once you got back home ? Squeeze a kiwi !

Hah! Didn't notice at first (shame on me :-) but welcome back! --Anders Törlind

Manning, it seems like I've been disagreeing with you today on language-related topics. Purely coincidental, I can assure you. Nice to see you back. --Robert Merkel

Hehe - no probs RM, I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't argue about language all the time. I gave in on the SNAFU case :) - MB

Re: talk:The Cunctator I don't think the delete-happy bonehead comment was referring to you. -- TheCunctator

Nice rewrite of Sharia :-)

From Yngwie J. Malmsteen : complete rewrite that isn't so completely gaga about a fairly trivial artist. Well put -- GWO

Hehe, thanks Gareth. Did you read the original article? It was ludicrous (and according to JimboWales, copied verbatim from his website) Thanks for doing the links. - MB

---

Re Mambo and Houngan: Oops, I checked up on these and they were actually valid definitions. Vodun is another word for Voodoo. I've reworded the definitions and put them back in. -- Derek Ross

Derek - they are perfectly valid terms, but they serve no purpose. They do not say anything that the article on Vodun/Voodoo doesn't already state, and the search engine will find those terms in the main article anyway in case someone searches for them. I really don't see any reason for having them - it just clutters up the 'pedia. If there is a genuine reason for an article on either topic which extends beyond the original Voodoo article then fine. - MB

---

You wrote: "vandalism removed - if you have a statement to make, do so, but please don't add spurious links on innocent pages"

I dispute "vandalism", "spurious", and "innocent".

Classing my action as vandalism was insulting. Vandalism (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Vandalism) means "willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others." I find your expansion of "vandalism" to mean "an edit you disagree with because you believe its motivation was ill-spirited" (as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong; I had tried to set up a page for the community to define Wikipedia vandalism, but it was deleted) lazy and depressing.

And "innocent" is just silly. What would a "guilty" page be?

I assume by "spurious" you mean "intended to deceive"; or do you mean "plausible but false"? Instead of claiming I'm a vandal, why don't you actually consider my link on its merits. Namely, is The Wikipedia Militia "a central, top-down mechanism whereby progress on the encyclopedia is monitored and approved" or not? I assert that it is, and I think it's a reasonable assertion. What is your response to that assertion? --TheCunctator

Cunc: I meant "intended to deceive" - mainly because I completely reject your assertion that the militia is "top-down". I accept that it is central, and authoritarian, just not "top down". (extensive reasons given on the militia talk page)

Frankly Cunc - you're one of the brightest, smartest people I know, here or elsewhere, and I really have an abundance of respect for you. I just get disappointed that you expend so much effort on disputing Larry's every action and finding controversy where no-one else does, when you of all people have so much good to give to the entire project. It just really doesn't matter very much, in my opinion. - Manning

Thanks for being understanding on talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS. I'm really not trying to dispute Larry's every action; note, for example, that I'm "disputing" STG's VIP entry. My criticism is meant to improve and encourage; I hope that I have managed to never say that something is wrong without providing my reasoning, and most often explicitly presenting an alternative.

It's demonstrably false to assert that I'm "finding controversy where no-one else does"; several other people, for example, expressed discontent or concern about many of the particulars of the Wikipedia Militia idea, notably its military, antagonistic language. And I'd say that's also a poor argument to use in such an environment as this; as we are not soliciting the opinions of everyone in Wikipedia, we cannot know what people's thoughts would be. It's certainly the case that there will be a correlation between what people say and what a) people think and b) what is the best course, but to argue that correlation is a strong one, as you are doing, is ill-founded, I believe. (In English: unpopular opinions are sometimes right.) I can think of numerous scenarios in which only one person presents information or an argument, and where that information is crucial and valid. (I'm not asserting that my arguments or contributions are necessarily so, of course, though any who wish to believe that are very welcome to do so.)

It's fine if you think it doesn't matter very much. In fact, I'm willing to listen to your arguments as to why it doesn't...

And the reason that I expend this effort is that I would very much like to encourage to this project, but as it now stands, I don't feel comfortable doing so. (I'd be happy to list specifics if necessary, because I don't want you to think I'm painting a picture of irreconcilable differences.) Also, as my handle suggests, I'm procrastinating.

--TheCunctator