Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 2

message: Although it is generlly well written, I don't think this detail belongs here.  In fact, if you go to the Valerie Plame page there is another discussion very similar to this one.  And on the Robert Novak page there is yet another discussion.  I would recommend taking the long section out of this article and creating a separate independent article (unless there already is one I have not seen, in which case it should be linked).  In this Rove article there should only be a paragraph or so as to how it directly affects or os affected by Karl Rove. --Gangster Octopus 16:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this developing story deserves its own article. Just because the Valerie Plame article is filled with stuff that belongs in a seperate article doesn't mean that that article should be the proper place for information regarding the criminal investigation into who leaked her name to the press. Same for this article, as well. So much *doesn't* belong in either of these articles, such as the jailing of reporters, the impact on the Presidency, Supreme Court decisions, congressional inquiries, impact on the Press, etc. If the Valiere Plane article should be redacted to only list her as "Was a CIA covert agent in charge of investigating Weapons of Mass Destriction proliferation in the 3rd world, until her cover was blown in an article by Robert Novak (see 2005 Covert CIA Agent Leak Scandal)" or some such similar text, then that's all that should be there. Just my 2 cents. --NightMonkey 10:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
*Create split article on Plame Affair. Obviously Rove is a central figure in the Plame Affair and so some mention and background on it is necessary in this article about him, however, articles on Wilson, Plame, Novack, Judith Miller, Cooper, all touch on the Plame Affair, as do Yellowcake forgery and Downing Street memo. Calicocat 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Created Plame affair and included all "Plame affair" material from this article there as starting place. Calicocat 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame Affair As Separate Article 

message: Pretty serious copy-repaste dupe going on. Everything between #Rotten.com and Wikipedia and #valerie was not covert at the time seems to have been duped. Was this intentional, or silly page-lengthening vandalism?
:Or accidental? (Forgot to consider that. Also forgot to sign it.) -- Gnoitall 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no comment. I'm gonna consider it page-doubling and just clean it up. -- Gnoitall 20:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AAAAAARGH! I can't hold the whole article in my head and do the necessary diffs between duped sections which have been edited by others after the dupe. I guess it'll have to stay screwed up. -- Gnoitall 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was intentional - User:Badlydrawnjeff duped the article's contents , but I'm sure it was an honest mistake. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure there was any mistake involved; there's a bug in MediaWiki somewhere which will sometimes cause a complete copy of the page being edited to be inserted at some place in the page being edited. So far as I know, the cause isn't known yet, but there's no indications that I know of that these users are making any "mistake" in particular which they should have known would cause the doubling-bug to happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's now fixed. - dcljr (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the heck did the contents of this talk page get dupe-edited? 

message: Okay, I've fixed this Talk page by removing the duplicated content. The way I did this was to start with the last "clean" version before the edit that caused the duplication (thanks, Ryan, for finding that) and step through every diff thereafter, inserting the new content in the appropriate places. Other than that, the only things I've changed are:
# restored an original post (in the section NPOV) that had been split up and responded to in a weird way;
# altered the flow of a quote-response (to the aforementioned post) in a way that's easier to follow;
# removed a comment about "deleting the original posting" made by anonymous user whose post (see #1) is now preserved intact;
# removed my own notices about fixing the page and, of course, added this section.
In addition, because of the cut-and-paste method I employed the number of newlines and spaces will differ in certain places, but none of these changes should affect the appearance of the discussion in any significant way. Finally, note that this page is still too long (96K) and needs to be archived. I might do this soon. - dcljr (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. That's much better. Good work. -- Gnoitall 18:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed

message: I've taken the liberty of adding a todo list to this article. My hope is that the article's editors might make use of it as a focus point for helping to improve this article. Calicocat 07:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article development, todo list 

message: Sorry, Calicocat, but that's not the best way to archive a talk page. You shouldn't effectively "blank out" the entire page. Disucssions that are ongoing should be left in place, with perhaps only the early stages archived to a separate page. Only discsussions that are not apparently ongoing should be moved. This is my opinion, but I think I could find justification for these ideas in policy or semi-policy elsewhere. In any case, I'm going to try to archive this in the way I'm talking about. Please Stand By... - dcljr (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the archive, any on going discussion can be simply copied back to the main talk page. In the archive I created, I noted, per guidelines, "This archive page covers approximately the dates between start of article and July 19, 2005. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)Calicocat 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that page says, "It is therefore customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive older discussions on pages that have become large", and "When archiving old discussions, it is customary to leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing Talk page" (emphasis added in both cases). It's kind of rude to remove an ongoing discussion from the talk page and ask people to go cut and paste if they want to reply to something... - dcljr (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've finished my version of the archiving process. Turns out, it's actually the same as your (Calicocat's) original version of 13:44, 19 July 2005, although I've used the simpler name Talk:Karl Rove/Archive1. I think we should keep things like this until discussion dies down on the earlier sections... - dcljr (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good and sorry if I sounded a bit short. Did you put the other archive up for speedy delete?  I usually like archive files (pages) that have to/from dates, but however it works is fine. There are many active threads which is why I used the "buzz cut" method, but if you think this is better I have no objections. And now, back to our regularly schedule program, already in progress... My best, Calicocat 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the other archive up for speedy deletion. Calicocat 22:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archiving