Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek

message: The following 2 contributions were added to Darwinek's response section on the project page. I'm moving them here to keep it neat (please note that section is his "soapbox", discussion should take place here on the talk. SB Johnny 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me... except for the "leave me alone" part.  Working together and without hassles toward a common goal is the meat & potatoes of Wikipedia (and everything else, FTM).  JackLumber. 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JackLumber. That is, I agree with his comment, "fine," but also with his stress on the importance of the "working together" part. Darwinek, I encourage you to review the initial stages in this dispute. I believe you'll see quite clearly that I was civil, even friendly, and simply assumed you would discourse with me. Honestly! Many of us have even started a very civil discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29. You could have said something like, "Ah, I see. I violated guidelines about national varieties of English. I'll slow down, and join the others in a civil discussion about the best policy for WP." But you didn't. As an admin, you should realize that putting things up for a vote very often does not result in the best decision for the community being made, esp. when it comes to dialect differences (because so many people just vote for "their" dialect, without thinking). That's why I assumed, once your initial -- and entirely innocent: I believe you there! (I made similiar mistakes when I first joined WP) -- guideline-violating mass-renaming was pointed out to you (a renaming which served part of the basis for the category renaming), you would have withdrawn your requests, and started to discuss this with others who were taking the matter seriously. The fact that you still won't do this is a bit disappointing. At a minimum, I would recommend adding comments to you rintros to the votes saying that you understand that "matching" the article names might not be a good justification for the category switches, since the names themselves were changed, by you, in a way that violated spelling guidelines. It seems like saying something like that would be a good, honest, peace-making gesture. I'm in the middle of a huge project; I'll say more later tonight or tomorrow. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-19 21:15 (UTC)  (moved 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved material 

message: SB_Johnny wrote: "User:Cultural Freedom went immediately into attack mode both on Darwinek's talk and on the naming conventions page." That is unfair, in my view. My exchange with Darwinek began here. How is that attack mode? Then, I added the (somewhat standard) warning about respecting national varieties of English, which seemed important here, since he was in the process of mass-violations of these guidelines. In any event, he kept answering on my talk page, not his, so it's hard to follow, but see here, for ex.. What frustrated me most of all was his refusal to join in on a reasonable discussion of the general issues. My assumption was that it was obvious that he had made a mistake, and (qua Admin) would 1) fix it himself, and, more importantly, 2) remove the misleading information from his call for a mass-renaming of category names (specifically, his claim that it was justified on the basis of the consistency of the article names; yet the article names were a result from his own guideline-violating renaming effort). After a while, my tone become less civil (though I never said anything approaching "fxxx off!", as he did, mostly because his attitude seemed to be: "Whatever, dude. You or others can deal with the mess I created." I've spent hours on this. He should have helped out, seems to me. He refused to help, and refused to discuss the matter in any serious way. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-22 12:24 (UTC)
:You added warnings without waiting for him to respond. In fact, you edited his page 4 times in one case without allowing him time to respond... which is rather aggressive behavior. 
:Saying "Whatever dude, go ahead and revert it if you like" isn't the friendliest of approaches, but it's commonly done. SB Johnny 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Freedom "immediately going into attack mode"? 

message: There's other background information I didn't include in my RfC. One is the email I sent to him the night (European time) of 2006.07.18. Here it is:
Please! Let's not edit war about this. You made some changes that clearly violated guidelines, so I reverted them. Japan is not part of the British Empire! (For ex.)<BR>
And about your requested category changes: please reflect on them carefully. They are extremely divisive. Peace and diversity are better than warring and uniformity! Best wishes, CF.
He never responded. Not that he necessarily needed to, but it added to my feeling that this person is a "non-communicator." --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-22 12:32 (UTC)
:Yeah, but that's actually a good example of the problem. "You made some changes that clearly violated guidelines, so I reverted them. Japan is not part of the British Empire!" is probably not a good choice of phrasing, wouldn't you say? (If someone had said that to me, I probably wouldn't want to reply either!) SB Johnny 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Email to Darwinek