Wikipedia talk:Don't be officious

I don't find the comment about the fake "you have new messages" banner productive, nor in good faith if someone decides to remove them. I do remove them, do I not write enough content? — M o e   ε  01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the removal that eats up editing time, Moe, it's the resulting sterile quarreling and argufying and anger. Perhaps I should have said "if you incite quarrels... you cause others to write less content." But I stand by my opinion that making a fuss about fake message banners is officious. You find me to be in bad faith, really, Moe? That's going quite far quite fast. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC).


 * My suggestion would be to add a suggestion that if wanting a change made, it's better to cajole rather than command, but that might detract from the elegant simplicity of this guidance. It might also clutter things unduly if a homily about being ready to allow for cultural differences was added, but I hope no offence will be taken at me briefly noting here that I find fags disgusting before pointing to a recent piece of content writing therapy at "Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag" + :), :), :).


 * By the way, why don't people like red links? They're always a great invitation to get diverted into a new wee article! .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

hooray....
Just a little note of support for this one; one of the shortest, sanest non-rules around... ! - Purples 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! May I call you "Perp"? Bishonen | talk 07:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree. (How's that for short?)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * !! (I beat Jim62sch) ---Sluzzelin talk  12:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)