Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/navbox

Restructuring

I believe that the navbox should be restructured to more closely model the policies, guidelines, links of the main page. I attempted to do that here, but apparently not everyone agreed with my edit. Perhaps something in between its current form and the one I proposed would more accurately model the main page. I am open to suggestions and discussion, as always. --Radjenef (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your previous edits in this regard (both here and on the main page) were designed purely to hide and/or de-emphasise the most relevant guideline links, to WP:NCON and WP:NCGN. Evidently because you don't like them, because they don't support your position. Appealing to the criterion of what is or isn't explicitly mentioned in the Arbcom decision is just another canard. We need to list those things that are relevant for the issue, and you can wikilawyer as much as you like, you won't get around these two, because WP:NCGN is explicitly designated by both WP:NAME and WP:NPOV as the authoritative guideline for just these kinds of issues. (On the other hand, the links to WP:RS and WP:ARBMAC1 were hardly as pertinent.) Now, since the sum total of your participation in this process has so far been little else but tendentious disruptive bickering, I'd appreciate it if you could just stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Geez, man, relax... I have no problem with listing WP:NCON and WP:NCGN, so sorry for leaving them out of my previous edit, it wasn't intentional. I also do not feel that there is a pressing need to include a link to WP:ARBMAC1, I only did it for historic reasons, but honestly I wouldn't mind leaving it out. WP:RS, on the other hand, is clearly a very pertinent guideline in this case, as is demonstrated by ArbCom's decision. I would appreciate it if you would stop enlightening us with your interpretation of what my edits were "designed" to do. I would also appreciate it if you would stop accusing me, along with almost everyone who disagrees with your POV, of "tendentious disruptive bickering" and wikilawyering. Discussing these subjects is hard enough as it is; let's try to keep the discussion as civil as possible. --Radjenef (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should the navbox be changed? I see no problems with its present organization. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ummm... because it doesn't even mention WP:NPOV or WP:RS, while it lists WP:NCON and WP:NCGN in their place? WP:NPOV and WP:RS were explicitly mentioned in ArbCom's decision and I am saying that replacing them with two other guidelines in the navbox could predispose viewers into thinking that the other two guidelines should take priority. At the heart of this dispute, there's a POV dispute on how policies and guidelines should be interpreted. Also, MOSMAC2 is not really a resource, but a long piece of evidence edited exclusively by Future Perfect and ChrisO... that's why I recommended changing the word "Resources" into "Evidence". Well, now that I've answered, I guess the real question is why was my edit labelled "tendentious and disruptive bickering". --Radjenef (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)