Difference between revisions of "Talk:Spectrum"
Nateoxford (talk | contribs) |
(→"Ben Cotton") |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Dude, anyone can sign something as "Ben Cotton." Do you really have any proof that this was, in fact, Ben Cotton? I think not. Moreover, the whole issue seems completely irrelevant to Spectrum. | Dude, anyone can sign something as "Ben Cotton." Do you really have any proof that this was, in fact, Ben Cotton? I think not. Moreover, the whole issue seems completely irrelevant to Spectrum. | ||
*The article does not claim that Ben Cotton wrote that comment. It only catalogues what a user signed under "Ben Cotton" wrote on the Bwog. And yes, the issue is relevant to the Spectrum, because it would appear that Spectrum people were posting obnoxious comments on the Bwog for some time after the establishment of their blog. Obviously, this gives a very bad impression of Spectrum people, although I suspect (well, I ''hope'') that only a very small minority of people were making these comments. In any case, this appears to be a real chapter in the Bwog-Spectrum relationship, and hence it quite relevant. So the content will stand. You are welcome to post an explanation/refutation of what went on, and of course you are invited to add positive content to the Spectrum article. But simply deleting content which is neither false nor irrelevant is not acceptable here. [[User:Nateoxford|Nateoxford]] 19:12, 3 October 2010 (EDT) | *The article does not claim that Ben Cotton wrote that comment. It only catalogues what a user signed under "Ben Cotton" wrote on the Bwog. And yes, the issue is relevant to the Spectrum, because it would appear that Spectrum people were posting obnoxious comments on the Bwog for some time after the establishment of their blog. Obviously, this gives a very bad impression of Spectrum people, although I suspect (well, I ''hope'') that only a very small minority of people were making these comments. In any case, this appears to be a real chapter in the Bwog-Spectrum relationship, and hence it quite relevant. So the content will stand. You are welcome to post an explanation/refutation of what went on, and of course you are invited to add positive content to the Spectrum article. But simply deleting content which is neither false nor irrelevant is not acceptable here. [[User:Nateoxford|Nateoxford]] 19:12, 3 October 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Maybe they weren't lying. Remember Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." --[[Special:Contributions/72.90.239.33|72.90.239.33]] 01:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:50, 4 October 2010
No, I'm not on the Bwog staff. But I'm really fed up with Speccies posting derisive, rude, and immature comments on the Bwog. Nateoxford 01:17, 25 April 2010 (EDT)
Something tells me this article will not survive the incipient WikiCU-Spec alliance unmolested. Pacman 14:48, 25 April 2010 (EDT)
"Ben Cotton"
Dude, anyone can sign something as "Ben Cotton." Do you really have any proof that this was, in fact, Ben Cotton? I think not. Moreover, the whole issue seems completely irrelevant to Spectrum.
- The article does not claim that Ben Cotton wrote that comment. It only catalogues what a user signed under "Ben Cotton" wrote on the Bwog. And yes, the issue is relevant to the Spectrum, because it would appear that Spectrum people were posting obnoxious comments on the Bwog for some time after the establishment of their blog. Obviously, this gives a very bad impression of Spectrum people, although I suspect (well, I hope) that only a very small minority of people were making these comments. In any case, this appears to be a real chapter in the Bwog-Spectrum relationship, and hence it quite relevant. So the content will stand. You are welcome to post an explanation/refutation of what went on, and of course you are invited to add positive content to the Spectrum article. But simply deleting content which is neither false nor irrelevant is not acceptable here. Nateoxford 19:12, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
- Maybe they weren't lying. Remember Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." --72.90.239.33 01:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
