| Revision as of 01:19, 23 September 2007 editA Kiwi (talk | contribs)1,189 edits →Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone: just checking .. can't figure out where original text from a few minutes ago went to← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:24, 23 September 2007 edit undoZeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits →Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone: it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | ||
| '''Strong Keep''' because each contentious section leads to a child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. Even one critic, personally acquainted with an important researcher has not been able to obtain a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a nearby medical school. And some who reverted many edits would not seem to add a single novel edit that corrected any of the many original errors. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (some persons have had recent vacations and have not been available). To those persons, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth ] 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | '''Strong Keep''' because each contentious section leads to a child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. <s>Even one critic, personally acquainted with an important researcher has not been able to obtain a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a nearby medical school.</s> And some who reverted many edits would not seem to add a single novel edit that corrected any of the many original errors. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (some persons have had recent vacations and have not been available). To those persons, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth ] 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** '''Comment''' | ** '''Comment''' | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ] 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ] 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| That is absolutely super Kiwi, it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation. Just one strike because it is mistaken personal information about me, but feel free to replace it if you know it is true about another editor (though some might say it is a bit too off-Wiki and personal for ] even so)? --] 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:24, 23 September 2007
Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone
I choose to replace this on my very own with original signature and time/date stamp, and you can do the same with yours. Every item of yours I removed was in direct response to my inappropriate comments. The last one was your comment about the material that could be moved to daughter/child articles to form a beginning of a real Wiki article. An article has to start somewhere.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Strong Keep because each contentious section leads to a child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. Even one critic, personally acquainted with an important researcher has not been able to obtain a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a nearby medical school. And some who reverted many edits would not seem to add a single novel edit that corrected any of the many original errors. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (some persons have had recent vacations and have not been available). To those persons, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth Kiwi 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- In terms of Misplaced Pages, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear WP:POV, and should definitely disqualify an article from featured article status. - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Kiwi 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely super Kiwi, it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation. Just one strike because it is mistaken personal information about me, but feel free to replace it if you know it is true about another editor (though some might say it is a bit too off-Wiki and personal for WP:CIVIL even so)? --Zeraeph 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)