Having thought about it overnight, although I still oppose mainpaging that article on the April Fool's Day page, I can understand why you objected to the tone of my comments, and I apologize for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. Unfortunately it wasn't just the tone of your comment that I found irksome.
To dismiss the opinions of everyone else with "I am frankly shocked by some of the support rationales above" when one of the comments is from a current scheduler of TFAs and one from a former scheduler. Pretty much everyone who has commented in thread is a long-standing editor in good standing, and no-one else has needed to sneer at the opinions of others, except you.
To utterly dismiss a potential consensus by saying that if you disagree with it, you will ignore it and go behind the community's back to have others over-rule that it is, frankly, arrogant in the extreme.
You are not the sole guardian or determiner of what will or will not bring the project into disrepute, and to think that none of those that have supported give a toss about the reputation of something we have all invested heavily in, is mind-numbingly crass and insulting.
This is not to do with your "tone", this runs to something much, much more chilling that I find deeply unpalatable. I really do not wish to continue this any further, as I think your extremely unfortunate posting will have bullied potential supporters of the article, but I doubt you will lose much sleep over that. Well done. – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mortara case
Hi Gavin, hope you're well. If you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here—a 19th-century cause célèbre that captured the attention of much of Europe and America for a few years. Any comments would be gratefully received. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk)20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]