| Revision as of 16:46, 5 June 2007 editFabian Dindeleux (talk | contribs)57 edits →Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:52, 5 June 2007 edit undoRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits rv vandalism ie removing other users commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| == Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging == | == Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging == | ||
| '''*Personalised |
'''*Personalised discussion moved to Fabian's talk page*''' | ||
| :Fabian is another SPA with contribs dating back to Junne 5, ] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What makes you so confident that I'm an SPA? Even if I am, you better read ] ] 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your contribs and the history of this article, ] 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus. | A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus. | ||
| Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the I found on this issue. ] 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the I found on this issue. ] 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::The fact you know about SPA's etc makes me wonder whose sock you are, ] 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:52, 5 June 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophile movement redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-31. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NPOV
This page needs a lot of work to get it up to scratch re our POV policies. Merging into anti-pedophile activism would be a start, SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute a lot of the statements in this article. Yes, merging it with the "anti-pedophilia activism" article would be a good first step. Lots of work is needed here. BTW, the totally disputed tag should stay. DPeterson 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I understand that you find the article to be problematic in its current form, but "this article needs a lot of work" is not a reason to place the TotallyDisputed tag. I am removing the tag because no one has made it clear why it should be there. Please note that I have not even read the article myself, so it's not as though I disagree with you or have an opinion one way or the other about the content. The point is that the template is being used inappropriately. Please discern the specific items, themes or concepts that are "totally disputed". Joie de Vivre 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was being polite when I said the article needs a lot of work...to be blunt, many of the statements here are POV, without Misplaced Pages:Verifiability support, and wrong. The tag belongs and work can proceed to improve the article...or we can just argue about the tag...I, for one, would prefer to move on with fixing this article. DPeterson 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is not being used inappropriately, indeed I have rarely seen a more appropriate use of it, especially given the recent history of the article that perhaps you are unaware of, Joie, SqueakBox 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is exactly the problem. Anyone just joining in cannot discern why the TotallyDisputed template is in use, because no one has explained. That is the problem. Please elucidate what you think the problems are and what you think needs to be changed about this article, in order to justify the use of the template. Joie de Vivre 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- WEll they could try reading the article, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have asked why the template was placed, what the problems are and what needs to be done to rectify the problems. Squeakbox has become rude (above) and Dpeterson reverted without comment. I don't see what can be done at this point. Joie de Vivre 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop disrupting this page. if you want to help create a better article that would be fantastic but until then stop making demands on other editors time and energy, SqueakBox 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please, Joie de Vivre, avoid Personal attacks. We should focus on the content of this diputed article. The content is under dispute as the editing history and revert history shows. Now, it would be more productive to spend our time improving the article rather than arguing about the tag. My comments and reasoning are stated above. You certainly may disagree with me and prefer I argue differently, but I stand by my statements. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, so be it, but I don't see that on this page about this issue. DPeterson 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that I have done any such thing. I have asked politely many times for an explanation as to the use of the template. Instead there has been name-calling and accusations of trolling. I am really not sure how to proceed if requests for explanation result in persecution.
- It is not a personal attack to express that I believe that someone is being rude, by saying "this person was rude", and nothing more. Joie de Vivre 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Given your behaviour on my user talk page and here I find it hard to believe you have any good faith intentions here. The accusations of trolling are based entirely on your behaviour on my user talk page. We are working hard to get an NPOV article and once that happens, assuming it does without encountering the kind of stiff opposition we hasve encountered very recently then the tag will be removed. You dont have the right to demnad we ex
Guys, guys, guys!! Joie de Vivre is not one of the heads of the hydra come back again. The template is still there, but there's no evidence of the POV pushers around. Talk is all archived, so there's nothing to see (except 12 pages of archives -- which indicates there's been a lot of fighting). Joie, the editors at this and other pedophilia related pages can get testy sometimes because of the endless trolling that's gone on here and on other pages for a long time. SqueakBox and DPeterson can both be argumentative, which has been an asset under the prior circumstances, and will be again next time another troll comes along. I think you know that several relentless POV pushing editors have been banned indefinitely, as well as sockpuppets of those users who've been back to deliberately cause trouble. People are taking a deep breath, but there's still a lot of history to overcome, and a defensive stance is sometimes hard to let go. There are a lot of issues that were challenged left on the page. The existence of the page itself was roundly contested. There are other pages that need work too. It's hard to get to every problem, everywhere at once. I do not blame them for not wanting to outline all the POV issues that remain right now--bleah--but I also don't think it's wrong of you to ask why the template is still there but nothing is going on with the page. Now I hope I haven't pissed off both sides by getting in the middle here, but we all need each other and it would be nice not to fight for a change and finally get these articles cleaned up. -Jmh123 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand the history of this page better now. Joie de Vivre 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on! What good logical reason is there to merge this with the anti article? We're talking different movements, here. It's already big enough with the (disputed) merge with the history article, and the anti page is barely a stub, with lots of work to do, IMO. (f a b i a n) 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets have a proper vote or discussion on merging
*Personalised discussion moved to Fabian's talk page*
- Fabian is another SPA with contribs dating back to Junne 5, SqueakBox 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you so confident that I'm an SPA? Even if I am, you better read WP:SPA (f a b i a n) 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your contribs and the history of this article, SqueakBox 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A few days ago, this article was merged with the history article. Although the user who merged it claimed that the (weak) consensus in favour of keeping the articles apart had changed, I found no discussion indicative of such a consensus.
Personally, I believe that the articles should be kept apart, as per the same reasons suggested in the last discussion I found on this issue. (f a b i a n) 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact you know about SPA's etc makes me wonder whose sock you are, SqueakBox 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)