Talk:Clay Aiken/Archive 12

message: Updated the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken page with the version from Paragraph2 to see the references as intended.  Although it is out of line to have all those rumor reference articles in an encyclopedia.
-- Triage 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the font size but I still don't like it. - Maria202 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the other two references to the same format on the test page to provide a full visual.  I think it's fine.  I do like the change in the sentence as it zeroes in on the metaissue without providing salacious detail, and specifically states the media source, article name, and date.  Just in case it needs saying, my preference remains to not include gossip and rumors on the page.  The difficulty in changing even one word in the original paragraph nearly a year later highlights how important it is that we all agree on any new additions, because it won't be easy to change in the future.  -Jmh123 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to bear in mind that there is nothing stopping someone from coming forward in the future with more salacious stories and we wind up with an article that is nothing more than gossip mongering.  - Maria202 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the 2 references to the American Idol paragraph for the visual.  - Maria202 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to suggest that maybe one of you should copy the text, including your recent changes, out of my User:ArglebargleIV/DraftOfClayAiken page to a subpage of your own, just for clarity's sake -- thanks. ArglebargleIV 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help ArglebargleIV. I've created the subpage User:Maria202/DraftOfClayAiken#References.  We can make any further changes on mine and leave ArglebargleIV's alone. - Maria202 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  So far the discussion has revolved around making an effort to make ArglebargleIV's suggestion work, even though it means including references to the Paulus event that I do not think belong in the article.  However I am trying to compromise in good faith.  If you do not want to participate - fine. -- Michigan user 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want any mention of these allegations in the article at all. The NE is NOT a legitimate source and Paulus' story is not verifiable by any legitimate third party.  I have been compromising on this all along while at the same time doing my best to Do No Harm to a living individual according to the Wikipedia guidelines.  For the record, I do not appreciate your personal attacks and I am asking you to stop. - Maria202 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A discussion amongst four editors (Arglebargle is outside of this count since he's the ONLY reasonable person here) who time and time again have violently opposed the issue in the first place is not "working on a compromise." A discussion amongst four editors who all have the exact identical opinion on the issue is not deriving a consensus. None of you have tried to compromise the issue. All you do is rewrite your wording slightly while still forcing the issue out of the article, while still inserting POV jargon that shows STRONG bias that you feel the allegations are a lie, and I have sat through a month of it remaining civil, remaining helpful, constantly changing MY revisions and constantly removing MY words in the clearly vain hope that sense would finally enter your skulls and you'd realize that I've tried harder to compromise than anyone else present. The only consistent request I've made is that Paulus' specific incident be mentioned in some form, to the detriment of every other piece of sentences I've offered. I've cut, I've chopped, I've let go, I've pleaded. But I've realized the futility, I've realized that you'll never accept it. Because Clay Aiken is your Jesus, and you will fight tooth and nail to keep anything out that might tarnish Jesus, all under the guise of benevolent kindness. Well I'm over it. You haven't worked on anything, you haven't tried to compromise anything, and I could care less what any of you want by this point. - mixvio 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I do not think that ANY of this trash belongs in an encyclopedia.  The proposed solution mentions the exact incident that you want included, it just does not name the culprit.  That is the compromise - you get the incident mentioned with references - we get to keep his name out.  Anything else is just Mixvio forcing his will on everyone else.  -- 69.19.14.25 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct! - Maria202 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tough. You don't decide what goes in or out. - mixvio 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So much for compromise.  - 69.19.14.25 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated ArglebargleIV draft page 

message: He apparently has a bra-collection. I think thats interesting!
But, come on. Thats so not true you weirdos. Made up by some random
40 year old man with no life and nothing to do but sit in his mom's
basement and harass little girls online.
Yeahh you know its true. Is that you? Ha well no worries its not me,
and I wont tell anyone your secret.
*Sigh. Is it permissible to delete babbling (like the above) from a talk page?  I'm not sure of the etiquette there. ArglebargleIV 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clay Aiken 

message: I see Alkivar has unprotected the page. Do not, I implore all of you, take this as an invitation to begin edit warring, or I will have to restore the protection. Hermione1980 00:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him to restore protection again anyway. Last time Will Beback wanted to unprotect it we were all in agreement it shouldn't be. If you can do it yourself I think that's better. - mixvio 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually think it's better if its left unprotected.  I seriously doubt anyone particularly involved in this conversation will do anything - and I think we will have total consensus among all of us participating that were something concerning this topic to change on the article page that it should be reverted until consensus is reached.  --Hamiltonian 04:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I brought together the following categories from the archives which had not yet been dealt with on the page, just so we'd have them all in the same place.  -Jmh123 01:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing things? 

message: I've read some of the eleven pages of discussion (11 pages!  How did that happen?  There's not even 11 pages of discussion on the entry for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.) on this topic.  I see one much-dicussed item is the Paulus controversy.  Since the topic has received wide-spread publicity and been heard by probably millions of people in the US, why isn't the subject mentioned in the main article?  The fact that it has been discussed so much in the media makes it in and of itself a news item, whether or not the actual truth of the story is known.  After reading the discussions over this subject, I have to wonder if the opponents of mentioning the story on the main page are really just "fans" of Clay Aiken.  I get the impression that at least some of their livelihoods may be dependent on Aiken's evanescent fame.  If that's the case, then they have a different agenda than the one that most contributors to Wikipedia are supposed to have- to present the entire story in neutral terms, and assume that the readers will have the intelligence to make up their own minds as to where the real truth probably lies.  Hiding issues or trying to sweep them under the carpet are counterproductive in the long run, especially in open societies like we like to believe we live in.  Just my two cents...  68.100.190.166 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is there.  Re-read the discussion and the article.  -- 69.19.14.36 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only wish I had been paid for this month of Wikimania.  Please read the mediation case:   Read carefully tufflaw's comments as a mediator, look at the comments of Will Beback, Katefan, and Kspraydad here .  Not everyone shares your view on this, or mine.  Thanks. -Jmh123 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  68.100.190.166, we did discuss it very vocally and we came to a conclusion that we're all accepting for the time being. I suggested that parts of the discussion be archived since this talk page is simply way too long. Trust me, we've debated the issue into a hole in the ground and I think the changes are positive and while not exactly what either side wanted 100%, acceptable. Personally though I'd appreciate it if changes can be avoided to the page as a whole (by which I mean clicking "edit this page" instead of the edits as a section) or to the Post-Idol career section whenever possible, and have the change clearly marked when it's not avoidable. I trust you guys and I don't believe anything would sneak anything through, but this way it makes it easier to tell if anyone new comes through on either side and makes an edit against the consensus version. I got a little skittery when I saw all the upheaval and I was afraid the argument had started up again. :P - mixvio 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry you got skittery, mixvio.  A deal is a deal, but even if you don't trust us, people like the guy with the big scary yellow triangle will be watching us for you.  Alkivar wore that triangle cause he's the word on coding, but he's also the admin who unlocked the page.  Today we were just working hard to modify all the citations in the article so they're up to snuff, and doing some editing we couldn't work on while the page was locked--but so far every edit as been exactly as you asked.  No editing from the top, every change clearly marked.  You can relax.  -Jmh123 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not worried about you guys. We all understand the fragile alliance we've struck. :) I worry about the random person who comes along and decides to delete it or add a bunch of junk about how Paulus says Aiken's penis is small... it's easier for all of us if we can immediately see a change. :) - mixvio 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yeah - edits like Mixvio describes show up all OVER Wikipedia - sigh.  Really the only defense is to keep monitoring the page and revert any revisions back to the consensus version.  You would think that there would be a better way . . . . -- 69.19.14.41 13:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's there and I missed it, then thank-you for the civil and patient responses to my question.  I read through the article but missed it somehow.  Nice work everyone, although I still wonder why it took 11 pages of discussion plus mediation in order to add such a small, albeit important, item to the article. 68.100.190.166 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually only 3 of those archived pages are concerned with JP.  If you read them and the mediation, it is possible to gain some insight as to why it took so long.  -Jmh123 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clay is just a fun guy to talk about, endlessly fascinating - thus the many pages of discussion - LOL. -- 66.82.9.70 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Maybe because it does not DESERVE to be mentioned over there either.   -- Triage 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snarking gets us nowhere. Please stop. Hermione1980 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. However, Triage is an example of a user that makes even my sarcasm seem tame. - mixvio 03:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the Paulus story in the main article? 

message: I recently read that he was dropped from a Christian concert because they got wind of the gay scandal. Does anyone know if this is true or not? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? -- Andrew Parodi 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to the article? --Hamiltonian 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read it online. It was an "off-line" (i.e., "real") magazine. -- Andrew Parodi 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Pure Fashion posted on their website that Clay could not appear because of a scheduling conflict and that they looked forward to working with him in the future. - Maria202 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dropped from Christian concert for gay issue?