Talk:Hotbox

Dispute

Can someone give me a quick rundown of what the dispute is all about? I understand that it's fighting over whether or not to include a certain term on this page, but I don't know why it's so heated. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute may be over. As you can see at the bottom of his talk page, the person adding the new definition has agreed to let this go until he finds actual sources. From reading the talk pages of the participants, I gather that this spilled over from a forum somewhere. William Pietri 12:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it started on a forum, where Buraisu is known for his ability to use the incorrect words to explain something (ie, Unicorn for a two horned horse) and not be able to take these corrections into consideration. When he added his own definition to Wikipedia, it was globally thought of as ridiculous. None of us meant anything more than to make sure he doesn't go adding his own definitions to every word he's ever used incorrectly, which would be a lot. Qwikk 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you guys are new here, so let me mention that the approach to dealing with one's fellow editors is different than your average Internet forum. See, for example, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You did pretty well here, but I expect that if you think about it, you could find ways to say the same thing in ways that Buraisu wouldn't be likely to take offense at. Don't worry about it for now, but keep it in mind for next time. Thanks, William Pietri 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]