Hey,

I tried to say some supportive words over at the Template discussion. I think it's a lost cause though. These Commonwealthers are filled with so much hate they will do anything to fight reasonable proposals. PeterH2 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't feed the trolls! Also, I think you went a bit overboard. We're at risk of falling into a flame war.... Samuel Webster (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning for the "troll" comment. Editors who disagree with you, even editors who at first blush appear to be making broad generalisations, are not "trolls" to be casually insulted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are Americans people to be casually insulted! Consider this a warning. And let's get back to improving Wikipedia, OK? There's no reason to be nasty. Samuel Webster (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, repeating my words back at me is very clever. I've raised this issue on WT:MOSNUM, a talk page which is far more suitable for the basic discussion of whether the current default is wrong than the template talk (which is largely going to be visited by editors who want to work on the technical details of its implementation). You can find that discussion here: please continue the issue there until there's an established consensus that change is needed, and I'm sure editors on the {{convert}} talk page will be happy to discuss the technical nuances of the required change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me jump in here. I was asked to have a look at the linked discussion for {{convert}} and I didn't want to wade in there so I'll comment here. Do not construe well meaning if poorly worded generalizations of spelling as a "hateful" or "trolling". Likewise, though there is no policy to be handily linked, please do not assume that a statement like "American spelling of XYZ is the anomaly, not the rule" to be some sort of international insult. It doesn't move the debate forward to be incivil to your fellow editors, especially where the locus of the friction (how to apply ENGVAR in cases where "local" application is nonsensical) is not what is being discussed. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the comments in question were well meaning. If you disagree, we probably don't have much to talk about. (Our background assumptions are too different.) But thanks for trying! Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith should still be extended. You can feel that Chris's comments were glib or uncalled for without escalating the dispute by referring to them as trolling or hateful. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. It's difficult, though, to take your intervention here seriously when I see no sign that you're trying to modify Chris's behavior. You come across as partial. Something to think about next time you jump into a dispute. Sincerely, Samuel Webster (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:World_War_I#UK_English. There was consensus when discussed, albeit rather narrow.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I chimed in on the talk page for the article. Best, Samuel Webster (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, it's a rather ugly term (don't you think?). What was wrong with the "exclusively British terms"? Tony (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]