This 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. |
I have been planning to write to your talk pages for several weeks, but I see now that you have started doing exactly what I was about to propose. POV crap exists because fringe supporters have been able to start an article under a POV title. Once the title is poisoned there is no point in trying to fix the content. The only way forward is to create alternate content under a different title. To avoid initial opposition, it may be useful to start the new article in your user space. Ask for like-minded or neutral editors to contribute to the draft. Make the article far better and better sourced that the politicized crap. "Steal" and merge useful content from the povish article. Also include the fringe views, but present them from a neutral-point-view.
At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Per this arbitration request, this notice is a warning to please avoid using edit summaries that inflame conflict. This edit summary was unacceptable. Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction you make is in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. Any further such edit summaries may attract measures such as blocks. Regards -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the issue with my user name Johnsy88 ( talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
TFD, while I very much appreciate your input, at the advice of Gwen Gale, I have walked away from that report. It seems to be hopelessly muddled by unrelated concerns. Dylan Flaherty 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising two sentences in the article lead.
The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here
Hope you have time to give it a look see, -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
On User_Talk:Dylan Flaherty you mention procedures for obtaining the input of other editors. for my future reference, what are you pertaining to? Buster Seven Talk 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFD. I don't suppose you know where to find the source for the claim that the SWP says it founded UAF? I can't seem to find it, and given the problems with sourcing in the UAF article, I'd like to see exactly what it does say.
P.S. Happy Christmas (or whatever excuse you have for a holiday - if you are having one). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! There is a mediation cabal case still open in which you are a named party. It also appears the other mediator has withdrawn. Is there still a need for the mediation cabal to deal with this? If so, I would be glad to volunteer and help out. Cheers! -- Lord Roem ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This 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. |
I have been planning to write to your talk pages for several weeks, but I see now that you have started doing exactly what I was about to propose. POV crap exists because fringe supporters have been able to start an article under a POV title. Once the title is poisoned there is no point in trying to fix the content. The only way forward is to create alternate content under a different title. To avoid initial opposition, it may be useful to start the new article in your user space. Ask for like-minded or neutral editors to contribute to the draft. Make the article far better and better sourced that the politicized crap. "Steal" and merge useful content from the povish article. Also include the fringe views, but present them from a neutral-point-view.
At first you only aim to isolate the POV crap. Neutral editors will come to your article. You can safely leave the crap to the fringe POV-pushers. They will make the article even worse, but in the end it will be useful for your aims. Only when your new article far exceeds the crap do you start merge or deletion discussion. By then it should be evident to everyone, that that the crap is a POVFORK of your article – not the other way around. If you do this well, the crap will melt away. If it does not, then maybe it was not total crap after all. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Per this arbitration request, this notice is a warning to please avoid using edit summaries that inflame conflict. This edit summary was unacceptable. Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction you make is in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. Any further such edit summaries may attract measures such as blocks. Regards -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the issue with my user name Johnsy88 ( talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
TFD, while I very much appreciate your input, at the advice of Gwen Gale, I have walked away from that report. It seems to be hopelessly muddled by unrelated concerns. Dylan Flaherty 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising two sentences in the article lead.
The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here
Hope you have time to give it a look see, -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
On User_Talk:Dylan Flaherty you mention procedures for obtaining the input of other editors. for my future reference, what are you pertaining to? Buster Seven Talk 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi TFD. I don't suppose you know where to find the source for the claim that the SWP says it founded UAF? I can't seem to find it, and given the problems with sourcing in the UAF article, I'd like to see exactly what it does say.
P.S. Happy Christmas (or whatever excuse you have for a holiday - if you are having one). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! There is a mediation cabal case still open in which you are a named party. It also appears the other mediator has withdrawn. Is there still a need for the mediation cabal to deal with this? If so, I would be glad to volunteer and help out. Cheers! -- Lord Roem ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)