Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis

Template:Mathematosis

 * I realize this isn't the appropriate venue, but mathematosis should be deleted as well. We already have standard jargon and technical templates.  No need for another one that uses an obscure neologism, and is likely to be used in an inflammatory manner. Le Docteur (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bit oversensitive. There are other issues than jargon going on in the math dept. of WP. I am not interested in any inflammatory behavior. However, there are appropriate ways to address issues, and tags are one of them. There really are issues arising because of this attitude. I hate to point this out, but the immediate dismissal of the tag is consistent with the problem. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the unsolicited candor about my attitude. I'll keep my own opinions about your behavior to myself. Le Docteur (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What behavior? I am a good faith editor, and I am accused of all sorts of things in the math department. All I said was that your immediate dismissal of the tag is "consistent with the problem." That is hardly an opinion on your behavior. It may be completely innocent. You have your chance to set me straight just fine. Criticism is how we improve ourselves. You shouldn't project an attitude into discussions like that. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue of projection. You said that there is an "attitude" (presumably of mathematosis) and implied then when I dismissed the tag, I was acting as "part of the problem".  I don't know how you intended that to be read, but it did come off as though you were commenting on my own attitude and behavior.  Particularly given that the post started by suggesting that it (what?) was "oversensitive".  Perhaps I misunderstood.  Le Docteur (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I said it was consistent with having that problem. Immediately proposing to delete an article about the arrogance of a type of person of which you may be a member is, in fact, consistent with that article. It may be the case that there are other reasons and you are entirely innocent (it does appear conspicuous to me however). Consistent with is not the same as imply. I'm actually trying to be diplomatic. If you have some issues with my "behavior", don't cast blind aspersions. Actually state your concern or take it back. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you weren't saying that I was arrogant. You were merely saying that there are arrogant people... and then implied insinuated I am one of them.  I think this perhaps illustrates my point: even when talking about the template it is impossible to avoid incivility (however unintentional it may be).  Imagine if this template were to be actually deployed in the mainspace! Le Docteur (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)