Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 10

message: I know that people are working hard to create a good article.  It is difficult because of the tensions involved in the issues.  And they are so current.  If this were about something 100 years ago it would be easier.  However, I would like to add a commendation to everyone for the quality of their thinking and efforts.  I would also like to say that I watched the discussion about the section now called: Characterization of the agenda.  There were some times when that section was just awful.  But people worked on it and it appears to me, to now be dead on, simply by the use of quotes.  So I congratulate everyone for that and I know that the whole article will improve in a similar manner.  It seems like such a small article for so much work but it is getting to be a good one.  And really, it does not need to be a big article.  Brevity is a virtue.--Anon 64 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Note 

message: These two statement:
*Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deny the existence any secret or subversive agenda. 
*Mainstream LGBT organizations do not support changing age of consent laws or legalizing polygamy.
Are probably true, but given the good quality of the article to this point, they need to be cited.  They stand out as being just assertions.  I am not arguing with them -- I do not know for sure, but I would expect them to be true.   I'm just saying that they need cites.--Anon 64 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites Needed 

message: Pollinator and David Bailey have views that are out of touch with consensus and incompatible with NPOV, so they are ignoring the agreements we've come to here and engaging in mass reverts.  This is not productive so I encourage them to end their edit war and instead accept the consensus, even if they are merely the loyal opposition. Al 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently learned that concensus is not exactly the same thing as "Majority Wins".  So, I would like to know what Polynator and David Bailey are concerned about. I appreciate everyone listening to me, and I would like to return that favor --Anon 64 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not about majority rules, but that all opinions are considered. Al, you have a history of dismissing any views that differ from your own. Besides, you stated that you would not revert, and just have. However, it's late, so I'll post my concerns soon. DavidBailey 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some opinions, once considered, must be dismissed.  This is particularly the case when these opinions conflict with non-negotiable rules, such as WP:NPOV.  The consensus does not have to be unanimous and we have absolutely no obligation to please all participants. Al 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you were talking to me but I am not Al.  Something he is probably grateful for. --Anon 64 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was talking to Al- notice my indentation was to respond to his, not your response. I hate inserting comments, like I have done to Als below because it breaks the continuity of discussion... oh, and Al, you're wrong. DavidBailey 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyal opposition 

message: I am trying very hard to make this article more NPOV and constant reverts by Alienus does not help. Please refer to Wikipedia:Resolving NPOV disputes. Alienus, If you cannot accept that we can work together to make this article both neutral, informative, and of encyclopedic quality, I will refer this page to mediation. Thank you. DavidBailey 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can work together just fine.  The first step is for you to explain your proposed changes here and gain consensus for them.  Otherwise, you risk reversion. Al 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alienus, you do not own the article. Read WP:OWN. I am making edits that clarify and move the article forward. Your reverts are moving it backwards. If you take issue with specific parts of the article, we can discuss this, or you can make edits directly. I am requesting that you stop reverting my edits. DavidBailey 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Alienus, you have failed to read policy. Reversion is primarily to combat obvious vandalism, not to enforce what you feel is consensus or NPOV. I am no longer playing this game with you. DavidBailey 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And yet you choose to ignore this standard when you want an edit to get speedily into an article. I'm not buying it. DavidBailey 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Alienus has now removed one of my comments from the discussion page. This is the second time he has done so. His continued negative attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, and prior failures for him to work with mediators makes me feel that mediation is not a step that will work here. I am announcing that I will be submitting his name to  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As Alienus doubtless will state, I am certain he feels that he has done nothing wrong. In this case, he should have no worries. If you are interested in participating in this RfC, please discuss it on my user page until the request is formally made at User_talk:DavidBailey#RfC:_Alienus. Thank you. DavidBailey 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether or not you are purposely or accidentally removing my comments, your continued reversions are not contributing to this article. I will proceed with my efforts due to your intolerance, lack of cooperation, and ceaseless claims to exclusivity of judgement regarding NPOV content. DavidBailey 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling for an end to the revert wars

message: This is the second article I have been working on that requires mediation due to Alienus insistence that he is the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV and that he has the right to endless reverts to enforce it. (big sigh) DavidBailey 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alienus has now removed one of my comments from the discussion page. This is the second time he has done so. His continued negative attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, and prior failures for him to work with mediators makes me feel that mediation is not a step that will work here. I am announcing that I will be submitting his name to  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As Alienus doubtless will state, I am certain he feels that he has done nothing wrong. In this case, he should have no worries. If you are interested in participating in this RfC, please discuss it on my user page until the request is formally made at User_talk:DavidBailey#RfC:_Alienus. Thank you. DavidBailey 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether or not you are purposely or accidentally removing my comments, your continued reversions are not contributing to this article. I will proceed with my efforts due to your intolerance, lack of cooperation, and ceaseless claims to exclusivity of judgement regarding NPOV content. DavidBailey 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This apparently is never going to end