Granted that Netoholic's comments were slightly out of line, I was merely pointing out the facts, and correcting some of your statements. I do believe that Meta-templates are harmful, and it would be best to include the subst: in all the stub sorting templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Civility

I'd like to ask you to stop being so hostile towards me. Please remove or rephrase your comment on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:CompactTOC5, because it is unnecessarily aggressive and insulting. I have never spoken to anyone in such a way, and don't deserve it, no matter what your feelings toward me are. -- Netoholic @ 18:26, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

"I have never spoken to anyone in such a way". That's a laugh! As a show of good faith, you must first remove your accusation of trolling at . BlankVerse ∅ 09:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Netoholic @ 16:45, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

...and done in return.

I have been going online for a very long time, starting with early Apple II and IBM PC-based bulletin board systems in the early 80s (and accessing campus mainframe computers before that). I then used almost all the major online services (Compuserve, The Source, etc.). In all that time, I never ran into anything close to a troll. Even after getting onto the internet, it was probably four years before my first experience with a real internet troll—someone who was deliberately disruptive rather than someone who was just normally abrasive or socially inept. Where I usually hang out—on poetry mailing lists—trolls are extremely rare. Even after I started editing on the Wikipedia, although I occasionally saw the actions of trolls (or reports of trolls at WP:RFC and WP:RFAR), I've had no direct experience with trolls.

To be honest, I was very upset when you so casually accused me of trolling—especially when I was honestly trying to establish a dialog with my comments at . To get nothing from you but a "me-too" response plus the accusation of trolling (as well as your clear expression of article ownership) I thought was extremely disrespectful. Although I have not been editing on the Wikipedia for very long, I was ready to quit right then and leave the Wikipedia to the trolls, the edit warriors, the POV pushers, the vandals, the spammers, the bigots, the homophobes, the kooks, the cult and ex-cult members, the Nazis, the vainglorous, and whoever else wants to try to destroy a very interesting idea, but a rather chaotic implementation. To be honest, I'm still trying to decide if the Wikipedia is worth my time, effort, and knowledge. BlankVerse ∅ 12:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unexpected

I'm sorry to see you still feel you and I haven't worked things out. To be honest, we did start to work on some solutions, just before the was bombarded :/ . Youshould have let me know these things were still pressing, and I would have addressed them. I find it surprising that you tend to think that I have done something wrong in my dealings with Xiong. That whole subject needs to be better covered, and held separate from my Arbitration, I think. I've actually just started authoring an RFC on him (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong). It's not open at the moment, but your input is welcome.

When I've made those new policy proposals, or suggested any changes, it is becuase I've seen others voice the same concern. To blame me for the failure of WP:RFDA when many others also supported, isn't fair. I invited input on it widely, and tried to address concerns on the talk page.

Regarding Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful, it was not a "weapon", but an attempt to put all of this technical explanation in one place which can be useful to everyone. Let me add something to your "timeline"... just before Itai created Template:Sisterproject on 27 Jan 2005, he first attempted to make a related change to all of the sister project templates (open this, and look just before that date and time). I wasn't stalking him by posting that template up for deletion 50 minutes after creation... it was because his insertion of it showed up in my watchlist when those templates were edited by him to insert it.

I'm sorry you choose to interpret my actions from such a negative perspective. I'm also sorry it seems too late to salvage things between us. -- Netoholic @ 07:51, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Netoholic: Let's look at the evidence:

1. Scope Creep: You start an edit war. Then you demand that I justify my edits although you hadn't explained your own revert. When I do explain my concerns, you insult me, make snide remarks, and casually dismiss my comments. Then much later, you make an edit to the Scope creep that only makes it worse in my opinion.
2. Use lists: Some snide comments in reply to my concerns, and then you ignore the issue. Finally you edit the Use List part of the proposal without ever addressing my concerns, but still "borrow" my comment about WikiProjects. [FYI: Long todo lists such as the one at the Japanese WikiProject have been basically ignored so your change doesn't help your arguments.]
3. move to guideline status: This is the ONLY time that you appear to want to seek input, but when I offered some comments and suggestions, they are ignored (and I wasn't going to do the edits myself because I just expected that they would be reverted).
4. Subst: You edited out my mention of Subst:. You only leave an addition to the main article on Subst: that someone else adds much later after Jamesday endorses its use.

1. For my part in the exchange, I will admit to one snide remark at WP:TFD.

You thought that we had started to work out some solutions? Just because you finally edit out calling me a troll and made a single attempt at seeking my input over a month after your first revert and almost a month after your first insult and incivility, and after you had ignored my comments and concerns up until then? I have to ask if you are completely clueless, or if you are delusional, or if there is some other explanation. After your last Scope Creep edit to the proposal I took the page off my Watchlist and gave up on it--it just wasn't worth the hassle. Since I have worked as a database programmer in the past, I could have helped improve the Meta-template article, but you never gave me the chance.

Normally I am a very easy-going haiku poet. It is extremely rare that I get this pissed off at anyone. I would suggest that you ask someone you trust, either within the Wikipedia community (User: Ta bu shi da yu?) or someone in Real life, to give you their opinion on our dispute and the rest of the evidence in your RFAr. BlankVerse ∅ 05:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "Scope creep" section, when I made that edit, I thought I was incorporating much of the feedback, while preserving what I feel was good advice. It was a good faith edit to address concerns. I think we're both guilty of not reacting well to each other. Like I said, before the disruption that occured on that page, I had honestly tried to make strides. When the guideline discussion started, I didn't ignore your comments, I simply didn't act on all. I did take your suggestion as to the name of the page. Regarding subst:, I have always thought of it a great way to avoid the meta-template problems (check out this early comment I made about it). I didn't like your take on it, but I did like the later one that was inserted by someone else.

I don't need an outside person to look at things. I respect and understand your words, but from my perspective I think there are some things people miss (or choose not to see, in some cases). -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)