Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 5

Minor civility issue
Zigger, with regard to Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 5 I have to comment that I feel it was distinctly incivil to label Fuhghettaboutit's creation of the CUEGLOSS redirect as being a form of "disruption" (your term). An accusation of disruptive editing is, by its very nature and definition, an accusation of bad faith editing, which is a strong charge to bring against a long-standing productive and constructive editor, and a well-respected admin. While the CUEGLOSS redir at issue was deleted, it was done so on other grounds. I don't mean to create a huge argument (not like anyone would notice here, as this appears only at the talk page of the RfD log of the day in question and your talk page). PS: Your response to my defense of the separate WP:CUEGLOSS redirect, which was kept, isn't very, well, responsive. The fact that various browsers exist with various features, does not mean that any particular editor is bound by WP policy to use one of them. Random side arguments like that are completely off-topic in XfD discussions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)