` February 2009 (UTC)  ::::* Well, hope the floor didn't hurt. But your characterization of my attitude and what I respect and don't is to say the least dubious. Did it occur to you that I didn't attend your schools, have different experiences, different parents, and can think for myself? There is plenty of room for differences in interpretation, as anyone that has mediated flame wars here, as I have can tell you. One cranky old editor spouting off does NOT make for a battle. OTOH, similar frank opinions have almost universally in the past resulted in a good working relationship, a clear communication, and about 3/4ths of the time, resulted in a new Wikifriend. So piffle to WP:CIVyou're not looking at the context, nor the intent of the context for that guideline. Being polite can in fact be counterproductive and a time waste, a matter of judgmentmine, as the observer. Take Quiddity (who signed up at page top for example) who once demonstrated a unbelievable tendency to pro-offer unwarranted judgments and unsolicited advice. Ultimately, I had to get firm with him and sent this, which he threatened to post, SO I DID. Nothing there to be ashamed of, you see. Bottom line... there are some people in this world that need rapped along side the ear to get their attention. There are others that need to have their toes stepped on, UNTIL THEY APOLOGIZE. Both those types benefit some by being jerked up by the shorthairs. Failing all else, it makes me feel better, and communicates at least one person, however crazy they may think me, has less than steller appreciation for their actions as they impact othersnormally others time. I really don't get excised much here about anything else. Endless editing and all that, after all.Sooooo, Thanks for the appeal to my vanity, but I suggest in the future you counsel people to examine whether a situation is ongoing, escalating, or one time episode of venting. I spent 2-1/2 years here acting as a mediator myself, and would never have considered involving myself in an isolated message based case. Not sensible. Call it justifiable road rage if you like—a real world situation here in cyber space, and  at least I cleaned up the vulgarity of what I had written in the first three drafts, to make my loathing judgment of his lazy rape of hundreds of pages plain. THAT is where I put my loyalty and focus. NOT on one of thousands of arguable interpretation of various guidelines and policies. If your INTERPRETATION of WP:CIV prohibits any colorful idiom or addressing a dumbshit-thing-to-do as a dumbshit act, I'm definitely done here. I'm floored that you haven't the imagination to understand that— save for the hyperbole about kicking ass, a deliberate attempt to indicate how poorly I viewed the 5-6 hours a day of well over six weeks of effort fixing his rape pogrom allegedly following guidelines — nor the fact that you were all being busy-bodies making much ado about nothing. One of the most reprehensible facts about contributing here is that there is a total insensitivity to the leisure time our contributors make, particularly by 'blithely accepting actions', one way or another, deleting their hard work and effort, which is about as personal an attack as one can make... Show me where NPA THE LEAST SENSITIVE to that VERY REAL, VERY PERSONAL virtual 'slap in the face'.  And fools wonder why we have editor retention rate problems! Wake the fuck up. THAT IS A REAL WORLD PROBLEM, not my slight episode of 'hitting' to administer a lesson in courtesy to others. (Call me twisted, but a single discourtesy to me  administered to make the point is properly due those who exercise the ultimate discourtesies, really without due process. Making 180 article pages into redirects without involving the community at large in the decision is to me, WP:BOLD applied way over the top. AFD or MFD should have been invoked, at the least. Not one talk page and three or four editors without a direct attempt to re-involve the originator of same articles, or their major contributors. BOTH THOSE badly need a quorum count provision, but I digress, the digression.) Those articles nearly 200 some were something apparently dozens put up... involving hundreds of man-hours and were well crafted. Oh, they needed some cites for a few fannish statements of cause and effect, but the necessity of that is itself doubtful in cultural articles about recently produced intellectual efforts. WP:AGF should be sufficient for such a report making a statement like ``this is the first (last) episode character/actor-so-and-so appeared in, and so forth. Then there's the whole joke of notability for such pages, which is hands down the most destructive guideline I've seen passed here. It's net result, because of the plethora of WP:NOTE guidelines, is we've literally lost thousands of editors by taking away their prime motivations for becoming involved, and applying inappropriate measures in an 'alleged' attempt to improve the quality of our offered articles—merely because some too wedded to the academic world have dictated the (anti-commonsensical) need of quoting a writer about something, rather than readily available source material. Others agreed, because like myself, they disdain one media or the other (I have no use for rock bands, and most TVbut at least I understand my prejudices) and felt that such has little place in an educational project—in direct controvention to statement's Jimbo has made lauding such breadth of coverage. The failure to improve overall article quality in the two years since is manifold and obvious; GA, FA and B-Class articles haven't notably increased in either numbers or percentages. The manpower drain to such measures of deletionism (vice improvement of whatever to a reasonable 'type-standard') has really gone nowhere. OTOH, ANYONE can access a primary source in a cultural matter like a popular book or television program (albeit with some effort required) to check a fact, cite a quote, or check an interpretation or summation, synopsis or summary. Cultural topic coverage is some of the more entertaining reading we offer, after all, and those that punch in random article or just hear about someone/something new is something that attracts readers. So who should care that such articles aren't to an academic standard. They don't need to bethe reader wants information and coverage, not null search results...  In DIRECT CONTRAST to WP:NOTE's focus is the indisputable fact that today, many people come to wikipedia FIRST, not just via google, to get a laydown on a cultural topic. My teens were the one's who made this obvious to me. They checked things out here first... then google in many cases. The third party source and so called notability guidelines are frigging idiotic as written for fictional matters.  But I get more satisfaction arguing with a wall. I guess you picked up some of my disdain for those ramifications and the narrow interpretations by some... but do remember, IAR trumps them.  That those editors apparently had moved on, perhaps found the contributory environment here too hostile, and weren't around to defend those pages became too patently plain if you examine the talk record... One idiot lemming behavior one sees over and over here is some young editor, from my pov 'much lacking life's perspective and experience' latches onto the language of some guideline  or guidelines and gets carried away with ittotally discounting the effort of others to build whatever page or trying to make it work. Had he accessed some off site materials (The scripts are on the web, for example), incorporated important series evolutionary trivia into the articles, and eliminated the fan trivia, the pages would have been easy to fix up. Instead, I saw it on my sickbed, queried our coverage an got appalled. I did however thank him for his screw up helped me get interested in the show, and I'm usually disdainful of entertainment media overall if it's not between book covers. The show's rather well done and enjoyable. My first wife, may she rest in peace, was a wiccan and I've been quite interested in comparing wiccan depictions these last 28 years. The miracle is not that I went so easy on that SOB, nor (to some) threatened violence, but that I bite my tounge for months without saying something—then had to spout when he made yet another ham-handed edit creating a slew of double-redirects without even discussing the matter, with me or the other two I've finally involved in editing the pages. WHERE'S THE RESPECT FOR OUR TIME, or the way he impacted our time DISCUSSED IN YOUR Wikiquette discussion OR AN/I? Where's the two times his edit crashed my browser, as the section edit on the page no longer matched the system software page... resulting in a lost hour and a half, for the edit got lost sans the system's ability to reestablish page context. So excuse me for feeling provoked by his incompetence. Not one's ever paid me a penny for giving time here. In sum, that whole group of people, yourself included have the problem backwardslike a cart being pushed by a mule. You all wring hands and make tut-tutting noises about one well deserved dressing down that was a one on one communication, totally oblivious to the fact your jumping of the gun is part of the institutional insanity here that makes it increasingly a less and less satisfying place to contribute, and outright hostile most of the damn time. In the future, try interven