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: The Cunctator/Talk 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
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
I dispute "vandalism", "spurious", and "innocent".
Classing my action as vandalism was insulting. [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
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)