| Revision as of 21:03, 11 April 2006 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits moved Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view to Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 018: archiving (with edit history) | Revision as of 21:07, 11 April 2006 edit undoFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 editsm retrieve last topic; update archive tableNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sidebar| | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ;Archived discussions | |||
| : ] Discussions before October 2004 | |||
| : ] Closing out 2004 | |||
| : ] Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005 | |||
| : ] July to November 4, 2005 | |||
| : ] to November 13, 2005 | |||
| : ] to December 4, 2005 | |||
| : ] to December 30, 2005 | |||
| : ] to December 27, 2005 | |||
| : ] to January 16, 2006 | |||
| : ] to January 23, 2006 | |||
| : ] to January 25, 2006 | |||
| : ] to January 26, 2006 | |||
| : ] to January 29, 2006 | |||
| : ] to January 29, 2006 | |||
| : ] to March 8, 2006 | |||
| : ] to March 10, 2006 | |||
| : ] to April 09, 2006 | |||
| ---- | |||
| ;Note : Edit history of archives 001-017 is contained in Archive 017; from archive 18 each archive contains it own edit history. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ⚫ | : ] | ||
| : ] | |||
| }} | |||
| When starting a new topic, please add it to the '''bottom''' of this page, and please '''sign''' your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better. | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == SlimVirgin's request == | |||
| Harald88, MonkeeSage, Iantresman and Bensaccount what do you think of ]. Don't worry! A break is not a problem, if it can help. Just tell me whether you feel it will be better for our progress that I take such a break.{{unsigned|-Lumière}} | |||
| :Yes, -Lumière, please stop cluttering up the policy talk pages. I skip over your comments because I do not find them useful. You are not engaging in useful discussion, but you do give the appearance of trying to beat everyone down by your incessant posting. We are not going to change these policies because you say so, no matter how many times you say it. Give it a break! -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A break merely delays the time when discussion will begin again. And again, And again, until the issue is resolved. If people can't be bothered to participate and EXPLAIN their points of view, then don't winge when others decide things in their absence. | |||
| Clearly, not participating is a tacit acknowledgement that the status quo is satisfactory. THIS IS THE STATUS QUO... post after post after post. --] 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No one is trying to CHANGE policy. People are trying to clarify it. --] 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :People have participated, read the archives. They've all come to the same conclusion that some here aren't interested in actual discussion, but in furthering their own views and so are completely resistant to reason. Opinions already expressed here by some the project's long-term, credible contributors indicate that they fail to see a problem that needs fixing and that these proposals are not acceptable. The only problem here is that a few are unwilling to accept it. Enough editors have objected over the months to the incessant droning on about this alleged "issue" that any further ignoring of requests to take long-winded, one-sided discussion on this same topic to user talk pages can and will be moved to free up this page for other discussions. ] 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My experience is that responding to these kind of discussions doesn't make any difference. The proposers know what they want and don't listen to my opinions. It has been explained that many of the 'clarifications' will just open loop-holes. There is a good reason why we are told to ''avoid instruction creep''. I've also seen editors spend a lot of time and effort ''tidying-up'' a policy, only to see most of their work overturned when it comes time to put it into effect. These policies have been around for a while, and IMO don't need 'clarification'. Three or four editors getting together to try to change a policy like this one is just not going to fly. I am not contributing to the discussion because I think the proposed changes are not needed, but I will step in to oppose any such changes if someone actually attempts to insert them in the article. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify the policy, regardless of whether they succeed? My guess is that as Lumiere has aptly noted, it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it vague (see above). Lumiere does not need to be suppressed, just more succinct. ] 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anyone who wants my support for fixing this policy is going to have to do a much better job of convincing me that it is broken. And I don't respond well to hearing the same arguments made over and over and over and... -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Donald for such a succinct expression of exactly my position. — ] ] 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seconding this approach --] 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:07, 11 April 2006
When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
SlimVirgin's request
Harald88, MonkeeSage, Iantresman and Bensaccount what do you think of SlimVirgin's request. Don't worry! A break is not a problem, if it can help. Just tell me whether you feel it will be better for our progress that I take such a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Lumière (talk • contribs)
- Yes, -Lumière, please stop cluttering up the policy talk pages. I skip over your comments because I do not find them useful. You are not engaging in useful discussion, but you do give the appearance of trying to beat everyone down by your incessant posting. We are not going to change these policies because you say so, no matter how many times you say it. Give it a break! -- Donald Albury 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A break merely delays the time when discussion will begin again. And again, And again, until the issue is resolved. If people can't be bothered to participate and EXPLAIN their points of view, then don't winge when others decide things in their absence.
Clearly, not participating is a tacit acknowledgement that the status quo is satisfactory. THIS IS THE STATUS QUO... post after post after post. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No one is trying to CHANGE policy. People are trying to clarify it. --Iantresman 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- People have participated, read the archives. They've all come to the same conclusion that some here aren't interested in actual discussion, but in furthering their own views and so are completely resistant to reason. Opinions already expressed here by some the project's long-term, credible contributors indicate that they fail to see a problem that needs fixing and that these proposals are not acceptable. The only problem here is that a few are unwilling to accept it. Enough editors have objected over the months to the incessant droning on about this alleged "issue" that any further ignoring of requests to take long-winded, one-sided discussion on this same topic to user talk pages can and will be moved to free up this page for other discussions. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- My experience is that responding to these kind of discussions doesn't make any difference. The proposers know what they want and don't listen to my opinions. It has been explained that many of the 'clarifications' will just open loop-holes. There is a good reason why we are told to avoid instruction creep. I've also seen editors spend a lot of time and effort tidying-up a policy, only to see most of their work overturned when it comes time to put it into effect. These policies have been around for a while, and IMO don't need 'clarification'. Three or four editors getting together to try to change a policy like this one is just not going to fly. I am not contributing to the discussion because I think the proposed changes are not needed, but I will step in to oppose any such changes if someone actually attempts to insert them in the article. -- Donald Albury 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why would users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify the policy, regardless of whether they succeed? My guess is that as Lumiere has aptly noted, it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it vague (see above). Lumiere does not need to be suppressed, just more succinct. Bensaccount 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone who wants my support for fixing this policy is going to have to do a much better job of convincing me that it is broken. And I don't respond well to hearing the same arguments made over and over and over and... -- Donald Albury 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you Donald for such a succinct expression of exactly my position. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seconding this approach --Francis Schonken 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why would users be pre-opposed to any changes which try to clarify the policy, regardless of whether they succeed? My guess is that as Lumiere has aptly noted, it feels safer for those who have a "firm grasp of the policy already" to keep it vague (see above). Lumiere does not need to be suppressed, just more succinct. Bensaccount 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)