On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span
style="font-variant:small-caps"><font
color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font
color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|nen]]<sup>[[User
talk:Cuivienen|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cuivienen|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cuivienen|@]]</font></sup></span><span
style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[30 May]] [[2006]] at 20:54
[[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
Now *that* is what I call "taking the piss".
Ok, I see your point on that one. Wow. LOL
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the ones
that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user
contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection on
Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages and one
new pages, you should follow whatever spelling you prefer. But on
established pages you should put your own spelling preferences aside and
follow the established spelling. Since this is a userbox which attacks one
of the most basic compromises that allow the project to function, aren't
these the real problem? I couldn't care less if people want to declare what
political party they support or their opinion is on fox hunting - but
something which says "I don't support the spirit of compromise that
Wikipedia depends on"...those userboxes piss me off, even though I have
strong feelings on the issue of spelling (I was unhappy that I had to write
my dissertation using AE spelling, but I got over it quite quickly).
Ian