![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It will enable us to establish community consensus as to whether we should have an article on "La La" or not. There's no other way to resolve this. For my part, I'll respect the result of any VfD debate. Everyking 11:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While we're waiting for Reene's response, I'd like to put forward some new ideas about this article, which for the time being remains unprotected. This whole dispute weighs heavily on me and worries me greatly, because I had been working hard on this article and its associated pages, and enjoying that work, but now I feel like it's all in jeopardy. I think we should agree that any edit to the article that might be controversial should be discussed here on talk first, to see if there are any objections. I'll make that pledge myself, to describe any major changes I plan to implement here first and wait for others' reactions, and if others will make the same pledge, I think we really can get this up to featured quality and avoid a revert war and protection at the same time. I don't think it's far away from featured status, really. And we need to bring up specific issues. That's been a huge problem throughout this whole dispute: I can't fix things unless people tell me what to fix. So if people don't like the inclusion of a certain quote, they should C&P it here and discuss why they don't like it, and what might be added instead of it, if anything. Everyking 11:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I want my work to be edited mercilessly, but only if that editing improves the article. I reserve the right to mercilessly edit an article to restore it to a better condition if necessary, as do we all. I'm happy to see you say you'll respect consensus, but worried to see you say that it won't address the issues. Of course it will address the one issue at hand, which is the issue of whether La La should have an article or not. Once we settle that issue, one way or another, then we can deal with improving the specific articles. I don't think La La is fine as it is; I have more work planned there. I do think this article is more or less fine as it is, it could use a little work in a few areas, but a massive overhaul would only damage it, in my opinion. However, if others disagree, I'm committed to hearing them out. I just want us all to work things out on talk before we do anything to the article itself. Also, Reene, you've been very hostile to me from the beginning. What do you say we adopt a mutual tone of civility from here on out? Everyking 12:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also want to say that I will respond to no further accusations that I am controlling the article, or that I somehow "own" it. By responding to such things, which as anyone can tell from reading this talk page are patently absurd, I fear I've fuelled discussion that is basically nothing but personal attacks against me that really have little to do with the article itself. Clearly John and Reene think I'm a horrible person for God-knows-what reason, and they can talk to me all they want on my user talk page or through e-mail if they like. But I want to get this particular dispute resolved, and that can only be done by addressing specific attributes of this article. Everyking 12:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And you two can have all the contempt you damn well want, I don't care. I'm beyond trying to understand the negativity towards me. If you aren't concerned with improving this article, I kindly ask you to remove it from your watchlists and quit bothering me. If you are, please do what I asked above and quit this campaign of endless insults. Everyking 13:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since both sides can't come to an agreement on how to discuss the recent edit without resorting to an revert war, maybe a polling the community might help? This still would depend if each side would accept the outcome of the community consensus of the poll of which version is displayed to readers. How long should the poll last? Shard 00:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is not an either/or thing, it's a content dispute that requires discussion, not a policy that needs to be voted on. Polls are a limited tool in reaching consensus -- sannse (talk) 00:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It will enable us to establish community consensus as to whether we should have an article on "La La" or not. There's no other way to resolve this. For my part, I'll respect the result of any VfD debate. Everyking 11:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While we're waiting for Reene's response, I'd like to put forward some new ideas about this article, which for the time being remains unprotected. This whole dispute weighs heavily on me and worries me greatly, because I had been working hard on this article and its associated pages, and enjoying that work, but now I feel like it's all in jeopardy. I think we should agree that any edit to the article that might be controversial should be discussed here on talk first, to see if there are any objections. I'll make that pledge myself, to describe any major changes I plan to implement here first and wait for others' reactions, and if others will make the same pledge, I think we really can get this up to featured quality and avoid a revert war and protection at the same time. I don't think it's far away from featured status, really. And we need to bring up specific issues. That's been a huge problem throughout this whole dispute: I can't fix things unless people tell me what to fix. So if people don't like the inclusion of a certain quote, they should C&P it here and discuss why they don't like it, and what might be added instead of it, if anything. Everyking 11:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I want my work to be edited mercilessly, but only if that editing improves the article. I reserve the right to mercilessly edit an article to restore it to a better condition if necessary, as do we all. I'm happy to see you say you'll respect consensus, but worried to see you say that it won't address the issues. Of course it will address the one issue at hand, which is the issue of whether La La should have an article or not. Once we settle that issue, one way or another, then we can deal with improving the specific articles. I don't think La La is fine as it is; I have more work planned there. I do think this article is more or less fine as it is, it could use a little work in a few areas, but a massive overhaul would only damage it, in my opinion. However, if others disagree, I'm committed to hearing them out. I just want us all to work things out on talk before we do anything to the article itself. Also, Reene, you've been very hostile to me from the beginning. What do you say we adopt a mutual tone of civility from here on out? Everyking 12:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also want to say that I will respond to no further accusations that I am controlling the article, or that I somehow "own" it. By responding to such things, which as anyone can tell from reading this talk page are patently absurd, I fear I've fuelled discussion that is basically nothing but personal attacks against me that really have little to do with the article itself. Clearly John and Reene think I'm a horrible person for God-knows-what reason, and they can talk to me all they want on my user talk page or through e-mail if they like. But I want to get this particular dispute resolved, and that can only be done by addressing specific attributes of this article. Everyking 12:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And you two can have all the contempt you damn well want, I don't care. I'm beyond trying to understand the negativity towards me. If you aren't concerned with improving this article, I kindly ask you to remove it from your watchlists and quit bothering me. If you are, please do what I asked above and quit this campaign of endless insults. Everyking 13:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since both sides can't come to an agreement on how to discuss the recent edit without resorting to an revert war, maybe a polling the community might help? This still would depend if each side would accept the outcome of the community consensus of the poll of which version is displayed to readers. How long should the poll last? Shard 00:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is not an either/or thing, it's a content dispute that requires discussion, not a policy that needs to be voted on. Polls are a limited tool in reaching consensus -- sannse (talk) 00:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)