Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 2

message: Since I have written a completely new article, I have archived all the old Talk. The process of researching this article has made me even more aware of what a dishonest crock of lying propaganda the previous one was. Adam 10:36, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want a childish revert war. I propose we take this to Wikipedia: Requests for mediation.--Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Since this is an American we are talking about, once the article is unprotected, I think the Queen's English should go. WhisperToMe 21:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen's English

message: (moved from the Requests for mediation page)
User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Adam Carr and User:John Kenney
Adam has announced his intention to commence an edit war over article Lyndon LaRouche.  Previously he had archived the entire talk section and posted a new article, which is not only generally false, but also plagiarized from a book that was commissioned as a character assassination. In this case, I am reluctant to approach him a second time for mediation, and would prefer that a third party do so. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the earlier article was the work of myself and probably a dozen or so others, and to my mind did not have the rather glaring POV problems that Adam's new article has. Adam said that the old article was "a dishonest crock of lying propaganda," without specifying any item that he felt was "lying." You, in turn, responded to by proposal for mediation by indicating that you had "only very limited interest in this article." Have you had a change of heart? I don't consider either you or Adam capable of a neutral discussion, which is why I am requesting mediation, and until then, the earlier version of the article, which reflects many different points of view and makes an effort to be objective, should remain. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that both versions have POV problems, but Adam's considerably less so.  At any rate, I'm still puzzled by your seeming mania for mediation, especially when we've hardly actually tried to discuss through our disagreements to come to some sort of agreement that we can both live with.  I've listed the page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which is, I think, a better next step than going straight to mediation, which is a fairly extreme step.  Perhaps you aren't aware of this, given your relative newness to wikipedia.  My opposition to mediation comes out of the fact that I think we really haven't made much of an effort to come to grips with each other, and that mediation is premature.  And what on earth is a "neutral discussion"?  I've never participated in such a thing myself, so I suppose you're right that I'm incapable of it, but it seems rather dull to discuss things about which one is neutral.  The important thing is not a "neutral discussion" (whatever that is), but a "Neutral article", and this can only arise out of spirited, non-neutral discussion.  john k 21:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more likely to believe that this is not all some sort of ploy on your part, if BOTH versions of the article were available on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It says in Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." You and Adam didn't improve the edits on the previous article; you suppressed it altogether -- even to the point of freezing edits on the new version, which I assume means that you are a Wikipedia adminstrator, or you know one. If you want to demonstrate Good faith, make both versions of the article available, protect both from editing, and post them on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Herschelkrustofsky 23:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Both versions of the article are available to anyone looking in the history, which they clearly should do - I can certainly add your version to the listing.  As to your quote from Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, it actually condemns your actions (reverting rather than improving an edit you don't really like), rather than Adam's (writing an entirely new article).  At any rate, neither Adam nor I protected the article.  Mirv did, solely in order to stop the edit war.  You also can't protect "both versions" from editing - the older versions are available to anyone looking in the history. john k 00:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding mediation