Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive Feb 2007

message: Hello, I've noticed the minor disagreement about the whole "Esperanza was a nice idea..." section of the criticisms raised against it. I suggest the following:
:Esperanza's intentions, however well-intentioned, were impossible to implement, and a Wikiproject is not necessary to spread goodwill.
Just a thought. I'm trying not to stir up the whole debate again. --Kyoko 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Esperanza was not a WikiProject. A WikiProject contributes to the Encyclopedia by improving it's content - Esperanza did not do that. The point of the sentence is that the idea was fine, with or without Esperanza but that such an idea is impossible to implement. Esperanza's intentions are irrelevant, it's a warning to all future organisations along the same lines. I have no idea why this has randomly been brought up again a month after it effectively finished. I deeply wish everyone who keeps fiddling with this page would just go away and edit something else. This sounds crabby and I;m sorry for that but Esperanza is dead and I'm getting seriously fed up with people refusing to let go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Dev, but remember to handle things in patience.  When in doubt, fuck it.  DoomsDay349 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev, please remember that this should not be about your personal dislike for Esperanza.  I'm not disagreeing with what was done, just about the attitude that it was done in.  Also think about the fact that while you say you are "seriously fed up with people refusing to let go", there are likely many people just as fed up with the unnecessary meanness being directed at this now past organization and the people who supported it. -- Natalya 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: I must agree with Natalya. Dev, COOL it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing about the usage of the bullet point, it is under the category "Noted complaints included:", so it is defined to be personal opinions anyway. -- Natalya 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Esperenza was a nice idea..." Opinion stated as fact. Quadzilla99 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really care that much, forget it. Quadzilla99 15:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing to realize is that all those bullet points are under the header "Noted complaints included", which designates them as opinions anyway. -- Natalya 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change to essay 

message: Prior to some of the edit war nastiness, the following paragraph was part of the essay, removed, and never really given the chance to be fully discussed:
:Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times. Even though Esperanza has been closed down, some of its former members continue to advocate the need for supporting other editors in this manner. It is worth noting that these goals were not unique to Esperanza; several other community groups were also founded on the principle of supporting fellow editors, and some of them are still active.
I feel that this is a well-written paragraph that would serve a purpose in the essay.
#It describes with accuracy one of the historical goals of the organization.
#For Esperanza supporters, it stresses the positive and encouraging atmosphere that was always one of the central themes.
#For those who argue that Esperanza was unnecessary, it stresses that community support was not unique to Esperanza, and continues to this day without the organization.
Anyone have any comments about this paragraph, either in support or against it? It would be nice to get a good amount of comments so we can get a clearer consensus on this paragraph than we got last time before we potentially re-add it. Eric (EWS23) 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not to have this paragraph.  It's something that I totally agree with. DoomsDay349 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I don't think that there's a problem with this paragraph.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I still think it's a good summary (I said so before, but this page has been "archived" enough times already and it's gone), and is in the spirit of the MfD closing parameters.--Alf melmac 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's good.  Thanks for bringing it back up for discussion, Eric. -- Natalya 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  No! We must say that Esperanza was eeeeeevil! ... oh, wait, sorry. (laughs) Seriously, this is a good paragraph. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-evaluating a paragraph that was previously removed

message: Come on guys, let's try and be vaguely mature.  We all know that edit warring is bad.  We all know that we should discuss controversial changes on the talk pages in order to not get into edit wars.  And yet, we're still reverting each other back and forth on this page!  Is that any way to edit?  
Yes, we've discussed the changes here.  But just because they've been discussed doesn't mean that there is full reign to edit the page as we see fit.  The whole point of discussion is to come to a resolution.  Without that, we are just back to edit warring.  So please, resolve the problems here wherever they are to be resolved, then edit.  Otherwise, I imagine the page will be a good candidate to be protected again, which is not helping anyone.  Also, remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not bicker about long-since-past pages.  Thank you, -- Natalya 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Just curious, does anyone remember where that was brought up in the "official decision"?  -- Natalya 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested at the mfd talk page to use the pump, and was then implemented during the closing.  The idea is that it allows any changes to this page, which I hope we all will concede can be contentious, to get a wide audience. There is no "official decision", since Wikipedia operates by consensus. Hiding Talk 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages are here so that there is no edit warring