Talk:DNA/Archive 5

message: Can this stop being reverted, or does it need to be locked?  Pakaran. 01:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 168 has been temporarily de-sysoped. Considering that I've been uninvolved in the edit war until just a few hours ago, would it be reasonable for me to revert the article's intro back to the consensus version that was hashed out here on talk:? I think it's a good intro, but I didn't have any hand in writing it so hopefully that leaves me "untainted." :) Bryan 02:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have a problem with trhat.  I'd been meaning to just hand-add a msg:protected to the top of that old version, when the whole 168 headache started I didn't ever get around to it.  Pakaran. 02:33, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text:  You have my support too. Stewart Adcock 02:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Since what 168... did was counter to policy I fully support such a change. --mav 02:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I left the page still protected, though; I somehow doubt this matter is completely and totally resolved now. :) Bryan 02:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Should Be Protected 14 february 2004

message: I find it shocking that certain people can't behave in a civil manner in the public forum that is Wikipedia.  We all realise that some of us have issues with various portions of this article.  168..., you had the opportunity to involve yourself with the final, productive, discussions but you chose not to.  I'd like to suggest that you play your silly games elsewhere.  Your personal crusade against Lir might very well be warranted, but it is clearly detrimental to progress on this article.  You are welcome to suggest changes to that first passage, here, just like everybody else.  Lir, you say, "Its pointless for me to discuss the 2nd disputed portion when what goes in the rest of the article depends on what is at the beginning."  The first part has been decided, you are welcome to discuss the second passage or not, it is up to you.  However, I think it is fair to say that the rest of us will continue to iron out problems with the second passage with or without you.
:Since you have been so forthright with me, I will confess to you that I too find your process a silly game, and an insidious one too. Your vote took place despite my opposition and has not placated Lir, which was the whole reason for it in the first place.  Voting also is far from the established procedure here, where anybody anytime in the future can come and change anything. Voting is particularly problematic in the case of this article, with which lots more people would be involved and around to vote if the proceedings on this page were not try ing to the patience of saints. What I am advocating, and indeed trying to force with my reverts, is reasoned discussion. In contrast to votes, reasoned discussion has ample precedent at Wikipedia, and is I believe both the preferred and predominant procedure. There is nobody here more committed to reasoned discussion than I. Nobody. My passion for reasoned discussion is so great that I can tell when someone is not practicing it or is incapable of it. That's why I won't discuss things with Lir. I would be very surprised if anybody else here did not agree at this point agree that Lir is incapable of reasoned discussion. I am shocked that you, Stewart, should seem to be able to feel so righteously that it is I who should go along with your plan and not the other way around. The strategy of the advocates for voting seems to be: hold a vote so that you can either protect the article against Lir or ban him if he doesn't go along with it. I think that is narrow minded (only about this article), oriented toward the short-term (only about the first paragraph and ignoring the likely resumption of protection) and probably more doomed to fail than my strategy (because Lir has never been banned over his many many similar editing disagreements). Everybody here would be more true to their beliefs and would better serve both this article and Wikipedia generally if we were to get together and take a united stand against Lir, get rid him, and go back to discussing the article like the reasonable people all of the rest of us are. Instead, it seems, people would rather portray me as a crank and help to get me banned instead of Lir. I will continue to do what I have been doing until people either join me or ban me.  168...|...Talk 01:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  If you think you can convince other people to agree with you, please clearly state your issues with the first part along with your suggested changes and we can all consider them.  In the meantime, the rest of us will carefully digest the contents of the next disputed paragraph.  Stewart Adcock 00:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other long comments from february to march 

message: Since there is a strong veto over the vote approved text, I suggest that we just drop that text, and try to work on a new one entirely. 
I would first like all parties to suggest a text that would suit them personnaly. This text shoud not be the voted text. This text should not try initially to fit one or the other of the disputant opinion, just yours.
Yes, I know, it sounds a bit like "doing it all over again". Well, yes :-)
FirmLittleFluffyThing 14:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: here FirmLittleFluffyThing 15:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More explanations