Wikipedia talk:Don't call everyone who disagrees with you a vandal

Two Suggestions
I like the essay overall, and wonder what inspired you, most recently, to write it ;). I would like to suggest 2 changes:

"Democratic politicians aren't actually vandalizing with their policy; in all likelihood they actually are acting in good faith, even if misguided." Change the last phrase to "even if Suzy's mom thinks their misguided." Just a little NPOV.

Second, I'd also consider adding another reason--people simply haven't read WP:VANDAL. In the recent case that got unfairly dumped on your talk page, I think that the editor in question actually did exactly what Suzy did--xe saw other, probably more experience editors, use the term "vandal" to describe removal of sourced content, then saw that happen in the article in question, so applied the term to the content dispute, not realizing that Vandalism has a very explicit meaning here on Wikipedia.

Finally, I absolutely love the caption on the picture. I almost think it might even add to the humor if you added a tag after "historians"...although that might be going one meta-level too far. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A minor point: the image and caption are mine; I replaced a fair-use image that was previously being used here. In particular, Magog the Ogre isn't responsible for any shortcomings of the present image. Also, anyone (Magog, yourself, or any other editor) should feel free to completely change the image and caption (within policy), and I preemptively have no objection any such change. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah! Another opportunity to spam put forward my essay In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil as a potential link or even content donor. nb. I like this essay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good writing. I've been meaning to write a similar essay but I think it's no longer needed because this says everything I wanted to say in a better way.   —  Soap  —  00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)