This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Reid (talk | contribs) at 03:46, 10 March 2006 (deleting old). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:46, 10 March 2006 by John Reid (talk | contribs) (deleting old)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Extra-objectionable vandalism
John Reid wrote : I can think of many utterances more objectionable than the display of a swastika or declaration of the superiority of the so-called Aryan.
You may, but are you decended form someone who suffered under the Nazis/ at face with Neo-Nazism in Germany today.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)
- Your comment invites the general response that we are all threatened by such. However as it happens, I did at one time live in Germany and was directly threatened -- both by Neo-Nazis and by Greens. Fanatics of all stripes are dangerous -- none more so than those who are fanatic in their opposition to another group of fanatics. John Reid 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The Walrus article
Why did you put the Walrus article up for deletion right after it was speedy kept? And then you didn't even create a discussion for the deletion.--Ssj4android 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep does not make any sense to me. Speedy deletion doesn't make too much sense to me, either. I don't see any justification for bypassing normal process -- and no, redefining normal to include end-runs around group concensus doesn't work for me, either.
- When I restored the AfD tag there was already an open discussion on the article in question (with two comments to delete, none to keep); should I have created another? I agree that Walrus should probably not be deleted; but I trust my fellow Wikipedians to so state. Subverting process sets bad preceedent.
- That said, I've weighed in and I'm out, so do what you like. John Reid 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)