Post by jorm on Aug 11, 2007 23:45:45 GMT -5
Well, I never saw the original request for the event. Like I said, I never see the wikinews template, so I had no idea that it was even being voted on. I'm not even sure how I came across the page in the first place.
Neither Karek or Sonny speak for the MOB (I don't even know if they even have MOBsters); it would be inappropriate for MJS to speak for two hordes instead of one. Regardless, none of them are MOB officers.
I'm not bitter; far from it. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, foul-mouthed hillbilly filled with piss and vinegar and speak plainly and abruptly. I believe that truth tells, and I don't lie.
Um...so you say the article is jacked, yet you claim you were channeling its tone for your de-historical request?
I'm not sure how these two concepts are in opposition. I think that you'll find that the ONLY thing I said that could be construed as being "side-ist" is "The article needs to be rewritten to not be so survivor trenchie centric." The rest of it is all either people putting words into my mouth or reading something that isn't there - or finding myself slagged here.
My complaint is and has been that the article's tone - particularly it's pro-survivor, recruitment oriented slant - is not appropriate for an "official" stamp. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more. Perhaps people are jumping too much on the words "or deleted". Who knows? That was included for completion of options (I'm an engineer; that's what we do: list all options).
As far as not coming here first, well. I wasn't aware that I needed the permission of the NMC to make wiki edits or to discuss wiki policy.
Neither Karek or Sonny speak for the MOB (I don't even know if they even have MOBsters); it would be inappropriate for MJS to speak for two hordes instead of one. Regardless, none of them are MOB officers.
I'm not bitter; far from it. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, foul-mouthed hillbilly filled with piss and vinegar and speak plainly and abruptly. I believe that truth tells, and I don't lie.
Um...so you say the article is jacked, yet you claim you were channeling its tone for your de-historical request?
I'm not sure how these two concepts are in opposition. I think that you'll find that the ONLY thing I said that could be construed as being "side-ist" is "The article needs to be rewritten to not be so survivor trenchie centric." The rest of it is all either people putting words into my mouth or reading something that isn't there - or finding myself slagged here.
My complaint is and has been that the article's tone - particularly it's pro-survivor, recruitment oriented slant - is not appropriate for an "official" stamp. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more. Perhaps people are jumping too much on the words "or deleted". Who knows? That was included for completion of options (I'm an engineer; that's what we do: list all options).
As far as not coming here first, well. I wasn't aware that I needed the permission of the NMC to make wiki edits or to discuss wiki policy.
