| Revision as of 23:49, 30 December 2004 editVanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs)36,325 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 00:09, 31 December 2004 edit undoEveryking (talk | contribs)155,603 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Secondly, I have never (well, as far as I can recall), and will never revert this article. As soon as this article stops being a serious problem - and hopefully, after this, that will happen, I'm done with it. Finished. That said, I'm not signing this myself, although I do endorse it. ] 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | Secondly, I have never (well, as far as I can recall), and will never revert this article. As soon as this article stops being a serious problem - and hopefully, after this, that will happen, I'm done with it. Finished. That said, I'm not signing this myself, although I do endorse it. ] 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :No, it doesn't. If the dispute continues for some time, we can add that to the agreement. But for the time being, I believe it's a needlessly harsh restriction to impose upon myself. And if I do just wait 24 hours and revert, what policy am I breaking? It's a ''content'' dispute. You're always acting like I'm some second-class editor, and I'm sick of that. Anyway, I was happy to see that you suggested that an article on FAC be expanded. That leads me to believe you can be reasonable about these matters and you don't think articles should just be brief summaries. Well, if that's the case it was never made clear to me; I've always thought your intention was to reduce the article to just a few paragraphs. This is why ''discussion'' is so useful—it can enable us to discover that maybe we don't disagree as much as we think we do. | |||
| :And I don't believe this article ''is'' a serious problem. The problem is not the article itself, which is on a fairly minor subject and is, in any case, fairly well-written and properly sourced; the problem is the fact that it has been the target of some radical deletionism, but that could just as easily be any other article. The article isn't the problem, it's the opposing philosophies that are driving this dispute. I want to concentrate my efforts on getting some historical articles up to featured status, but I know the same thing will happen with that, too, and all hell will break loose. It wears me down and makes me lose the enthusiasm I once had for the project. ] 00:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:09, 31 December 2004
Firstly, I see that this doesn't include Everyking's previous suggestion that he wouldn't revert the same edit more than once. That concerns me a bit, as there's issues with just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting.
Secondly, I have never (well, as far as I can recall), and will never revert this article. As soon as this article stops being a serious problem - and hopefully, after this, that will happen, I'm done with it. Finished. That said, I'm not signing this myself, although I do endorse it. Ambi 23:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If the dispute continues for some time, we can add that to the agreement. But for the time being, I believe it's a needlessly harsh restriction to impose upon myself. And if I do just wait 24 hours and revert, what policy am I breaking? It's a content dispute. You're always acting like I'm some second-class editor, and I'm sick of that. Anyway, I was happy to see that you suggested that an article on FAC be expanded. That leads me to believe you can be reasonable about these matters and you don't think articles should just be brief summaries. Well, if that's the case it was never made clear to me; I've always thought your intention was to reduce the article to just a few paragraphs. This is why discussion is so useful—it can enable us to discover that maybe we don't disagree as much as we think we do.
- And I don't believe this article is a serious problem. The problem is not the article itself, which is on a fairly minor subject and is, in any case, fairly well-written and properly sourced; the problem is the fact that it has been the target of some radical deletionism, but that could just as easily be any other article. The article isn't the problem, it's the opposing philosophies that are driving this dispute. I want to concentrate my efforts on getting some historical articles up to featured status, but I know the same thing will happen with that, too, and all hell will break loose. It wears me down and makes me lose the enthusiasm I once had for the project. Everyking 00:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)