Content deleted Content added
m |
|||
Line 258: ::::And Freenode, err, 'owns' Freenode. The point is that they are managed independently of the particular project communities, so "Wikipedia has a dependency on X" (e.g. the helpme template on enwiki) isn't really enough of a reason. If the Group Contacts aren't responsive to the desires of the (enwiki) community, then the (enwiki) community has the prerogative to, say, start an RfC on disaffiliating enwiki from IRC. But unless there's an actual real concern about management of IRC, the current proposal seems like a solution looking for a problem. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ::::WMF does not govern the tool server, which operates separately from Wikipedia, and the community does not "own" IRC. You really need to research before making claims and also choose your words more carefully, Hedgehog, because you further damage your credibility when you don't have your facts in order and when you say things like "forced" repeatedly for things that are optional. [[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:deeppink">Lara</span>]] 21:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) {{od}}*'''Comment''' Without wanting to comment on the subject matter - I can see pros and cons on both sides here - I do want to comment on the way this is being discussed. Reading through this has left with with an uncomfortable taste in the mouth; for my taste, there are rather too many words / remarks such as "disingenuous" (x 2), "tiresome", "hidden agenda", "attempting to cover up", "beyond ridiculous", "astoundingly fallacious", and so on. It's perfectly possible to oppose a proposal without resorting to ad hominem attacks on the proper, and using language which ''appears to be'' patronising, condescending, and (basically) name-calling. So please, if this applies to you, cut out the snark. It's unnecessary. Cheers. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner|ThatPeskyCommoner]] 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC) | |||