User:El_C beat me with his close. I'd like to object to the close. It reflects an individual opinion and doe not reflect a consensus derived from the debate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- The close is well within my discretion and is a compromise of both views, regardless of my opinion, to which I am entitled. Adding a keep after I closed it is questionable, however. Please do not do that again (rather, use deletion review). Thanks. El_C 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will second SmokeyJoe's objections. You may see it as a "compromise of both views," but in fact it is a Catch-22 that will all but guarantee that you will delete the essay in a week's time. The people who think that the essay was "well-written" don't see anything that needs to be "cleaned up," so they will do nothing. The people who dismissed it as "personal ramblings" will not see why they should bother to "clean up" an essay that they wanted deleted in the first place, so they won't do anything, either. Then, in a week you will justify your deletion by arguing that despite your "reasonableness" in "compromising," the people who wanted the essay kept were "too lazy" to "step up."
- Also, your close doesn't really provide any meaningful guidance as to what changes you want. You mention "sections, links, emphases, tone, etc." But, for example, which links are you objecting to? And why? I don't want to edit this essay, not just because I see no reason to, but because I'm reluctant to change other users' essays, even when they aren't well-written. At most, I might add a notice that the essay was likely not a literally true story, but a parable, as Pwnage8 discussed. In particular, I don't like the idea of changing the "tone" of other people's personal essays.
- Going to DRV while the essay still exists may be premature, but if it is deleted, I will take this to DRV. -- Groggy Dice T | C 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I don't see at least a cosmetic facelift within a week, I will be deleting it. Those wishing to see it kept, will have to do their part to make it a bit more accessible, or I'm just going to assume that that they don't care that much. Whether I'll encounter a letter of or spirit of the rules closer at DRV, well, that's a fifty-fifty. But I stand behind that close as a sound interpretation & fair compromise. El_C 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead with a "cosmetic facelift." If this satisfies you, great; if not, this debate will have to resume. -- Groggy Dice T | C 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know whether my earlier response got lost in a crowded watchlist, or you figure that you don't need to make a decision until the end of the week, but I feel I need a verdict now on whether my changes so far have passed your threshold. First, my edits already surpass a "cosmetic facelift" in my eyes, and your broad directive to clean up "sections, links, emphases, tone, etc." is not useful to me since I never saw anything wrong with its sections, links, emphases, or tone in the first place. So if you still find my changes inadequate, I need more specific guidance.
- Second, after thinking about it, I figure that if this is going to go to DRV, it's probably best to take it there while non-admins can still read it. So I'd like to hear your response, so I can decide whether you are persuadable by either essay edits or discussion, or whether to advance it to DRV in the next few days. -- Groggy Dice T | C 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a few hundred edits yesterday, so it did slip my mind, but it's not unreasonable to wait a day. Obviously, deletion would have happened had nobody bothered to do anything with the page, then I would have interpreted the delete side's position that this is, basically, an incoherent rant, as enjoying consensus. I stand by that as a logical approach. El_C 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's readable now, so I'm closing as keep. El_C 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion deserves a broader set of eyes. I have launched a DRV. Martinp ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You could have tried discussing it with me; that you didn't is to your discredit.
El_C 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion did not seem to be very productive, and clearly suggested that you were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your approach was correct. In other words, me posting on your talk page would have been unlikely to persuade you that your close was inappropriate. However, we've ended up in a place all of us seem to be happy with, so mission accomplished. Sorry to read that you disliked my approach and feel it to have been process-wonkery, which we both agree is unhelpful.
Martinp (
talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming the best rather than the worst is more sensible; patience, as well, is a virtue. El_C 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion did not seem to be very productive, and clearly suggested that you were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your approach was correct. In other words, me posting on your talk page would have been unlikely to persuade you that your close was inappropriate. However, we've ended up in a place all of us seem to be happy with, so mission accomplished. Sorry to read that you disliked my approach and feel it to have been process-wonkery, which we both agree is unhelpful.
Martinp (
talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
User:El_C beat me with his close. I'd like to object to the close. It reflects an individual opinion and doe not reflect a consensus derived from the debate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- The close is well within my discretion and is a compromise of both views, regardless of my opinion, to which I am entitled. Adding a keep after I closed it is questionable, however. Please do not do that again (rather, use deletion review). Thanks. El_C 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will second SmokeyJoe's objections. You may see it as a "compromise of both views," but in fact it is a Catch-22 that will all but guarantee that you will delete the essay in a week's time. The people who think that the essay was "well-written" don't see anything that needs to be "cleaned up," so they will do nothing. The people who dismissed it as "personal ramblings" will not see why they should bother to "clean up" an essay that they wanted deleted in the first place, so they won't do anything, either. Then, in a week you will justify your deletion by arguing that despite your "reasonableness" in "compromising," the people who wanted the essay kept were "too lazy" to "step up."
- Also, your close doesn't really provide any meaningful guidance as to what changes you want. You mention "sections, links, emphases, tone, etc." But, for example, which links are you objecting to? And why? I don't want to edit this essay, not just because I see no reason to, but because I'm reluctant to change other users' essays, even when they aren't well-written. At most, I might add a notice that the essay was likely not a literally true story, but a parable, as Pwnage8 discussed. In particular, I don't like the idea of changing the "tone" of other people's personal essays.
- Going to DRV while the essay still exists may be premature, but if it is deleted, I will take this to DRV. -- Groggy Dice T | C 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- If I don't see at least a cosmetic facelift within a week, I will be deleting it. Those wishing to see it kept, will have to do their part to make it a bit more accessible, or I'm just going to assume that that they don't care that much. Whether I'll encounter a letter of or spirit of the rules closer at DRV, well, that's a fifty-fifty. But I stand behind that close as a sound interpretation & fair compromise. El_C 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead with a "cosmetic facelift." If this satisfies you, great; if not, this debate will have to resume. -- Groggy Dice T | C 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know whether my earlier response got lost in a crowded watchlist, or you figure that you don't need to make a decision until the end of the week, but I feel I need a verdict now on whether my changes so far have passed your threshold. First, my edits already surpass a "cosmetic facelift" in my eyes, and your broad directive to clean up "sections, links, emphases, tone, etc." is not useful to me since I never saw anything wrong with its sections, links, emphases, or tone in the first place. So if you still find my changes inadequate, I need more specific guidance.
- Second, after thinking about it, I figure that if this is going to go to DRV, it's probably best to take it there while non-admins can still read it. So I'd like to hear your response, so I can decide whether you are persuadable by either essay edits or discussion, or whether to advance it to DRV in the next few days. -- Groggy Dice T | C 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a few hundred edits yesterday, so it did slip my mind, but it's not unreasonable to wait a day. Obviously, deletion would have happened had nobody bothered to do anything with the page, then I would have interpreted the delete side's position that this is, basically, an incoherent rant, as enjoying consensus. I stand by that as a logical approach. El_C 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's readable now, so I'm closing as keep. El_C 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion deserves a broader set of eyes. I have launched a DRV. Martinp ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You could have tried discussing it with me; that you didn't is to your discredit.
El_C 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion did not seem to be very productive, and clearly suggested that you were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your approach was correct. In other words, me posting on your talk page would have been unlikely to persuade you that your close was inappropriate. However, we've ended up in a place all of us seem to be happy with, so mission accomplished. Sorry to read that you disliked my approach and feel it to have been process-wonkery, which we both agree is unhelpful.
Martinp (
talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming the best rather than the worst is more sensible; patience, as well, is a virtue. El_C 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion did not seem to be very productive, and clearly suggested that you were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that your approach was correct. In other words, me posting on your talk page would have been unlikely to persuade you that your close was inappropriate. However, we've ended up in a place all of us seem to be happy with, so mission accomplished. Sorry to read that you disliked my approach and feel it to have been process-wonkery, which we both agree is unhelpful.
Martinp (
talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)