Wikipedia talk:Profanity/core

I don't think it was a good idea to spam announcements of this idea all over the project right after I pointed out a fundamental flaw at WT:MOS. This is not a reasonable use of other editors' attention, which is a limited resource. Hans Adler 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've given your view and it will be taken on board. If this change is accepted it will be a major change to the MoS and as such I am trying to attract the widest group of editors not spamming Gnevin (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's extremely bad form to advertise your planned change so widely before such an obvious show stoppers has been dealt with. You are merely causing unnecessary noise. Hans Adler 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not bad form and I don't consider it a obvious show stopper. I'm sorry but I don't like the tone of this discussion at all. Gnevin (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Profanity has 64 watchers. WP:Profanity/core has, of course, (much) less than 30, so the number is not published. On more important pages the difference would be even more. We regularly have conflicts about policy/guideline pages. It's important to people that they notice when they change. If your idea were implemented, editors would have to add many "core" pages to their watchlists. Also an editor who edits the rest of the guideline would not automatically watchlist the "core". This will never be accepted, and the fact that it has no chance of being accepted makes it a show stopper, whether you agree or not.
 * You needn't like this discussion. The important point is that you learn something from it. Hans Adler 22:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but why are you being so aggressive ? Please be civil, I am agreeing with you Gnevin (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing aggressive in the comments above, and certainly nothing even coming close to being a CIVIL problem. Hans would possibly not have felt the need to repeat his message if you had shown some sign of hearing it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because Gnevin doesn't agree with Hans Adler about whether his actions constitute a show-stopper doesn't mean he's not listening. However, I agree that Hans has not violated WP:CIVIL here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)