Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show/Archive 1

message: sorry am new to all this but thought you might like to know that according to the rear of the special widescreen edition 1996 video box  " the film has grossed well over $150 million at the box office and maintains its position as the campy favourite of the midnight movie - still playing worldwide to both new and experienced audiences"      sorry if i have put this in the wrong place or anything but hope it is useful Maddie1975 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: citation offered

message: I suggest no further edits to this article without proper citiations. There are several sources available including books still in print, newspaper articles spanning 30 years as well as online sources, magazines, such as Time, Newsweek and others. There is no excuse for false claims or incorrect information. I have started adding citations and removing information with no clear source to be found. --Amadscientist 18:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations desperately needed 

message: Information is incorrect and has been edited so mauch it no longer carries the weight of it's original intention. The List from the 25th anniversary DVD is NOT the list from that DVD. The Sexual Slang Subject line makes no sense I will be deleting these. --Amadscientist 06:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removal 

message: Any particular things or just a general clean up. I'm thinking we should link more in formation to new pages.--Amadscientist 05:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Clean up 

message: This article needs to be locked from any further edits temporarily from non-registered users due to a frequent removal of a link to an on-going news issue concerning RHPS showings and the legality of minors present at said showings.
Why? Because someone removed your information? It doesn't seem relevant to the overall movie. Just to you. Perhaps it was because it was in the wrong place. But really we don't need more information we need to edit what is here to be writen in a more proffesional mannaer. I have edited the first two portions of this article. But it needs to be more encylopedic. Heck you don't even sign your comment, although I forget sometimes as well. --Amadscientist 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Lockout? 

message: This page has become to complicated. I think it needs a complete re-write and possibly add new related pages to add the individual catagories into linkable text. Although the article is long, it is incomplete. There is little or nothing about the production staff, the costume and art design. The cult following sections seem to be heavily edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)  	
:I agree that a rewrite is necessary, and would be happy to help edit any text someone else generates, but at the moment I haven't the time to write it myself. Polymathematics 04:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete re-write? 

message: hear ye, here ye, the Tarquin cometh to move this page. The question is, should it be: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (film, best-known) or "The Rocky Horror Show" (original musical)? -- Tarquin
:The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for my part. -- John Owens
:I'd say the film was much bigger and is better known than the stage show. It's what I would expect most people to think of first if you say "Rocky Horror". Tualha 06:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: When I think of Rocky, I think The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  Popefelix 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show or Picture Show? 

message: This section is getting silly and definitely borders on unencyclopedic.  It needs cleanup.  Naming specific theatres is absurd.  Apart from mentioning the beginnings at the Waverly and the longest running cast in Allentown, PA, I don't see any need to list what theatres still do or used to do RHPS. I'm not going to start deleting stuff, but just wanted to see what others thought. -- Krash 17:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its got a bit out of hand, yes. The Waverly and The Classic were (seperately) basically the first to put it on a recurring basis, it seems - all the others listed seem to be newer, and/or don't even show it anymore. Neither does The Classic though; it closed down... --Kiand 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've decided to drop the entire listing - screw it, the waverly is the best known, as I'd even heard of it here (being a Classic atendee for a few showings may have assisted that...) --Kiand 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult following

message: I think it's better not to use the unix variable, because ven though it's a nice way of describe it, and a amusing, it is confusing to readers that have no clue about unix or bash variables, following the advice on jargon if $NAME is to be used, it should at least be explained. <drini ☎> 02:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  $NAME vs NAME 

message: Krash, before I continue the argument, I need to know your basis of understanding.  Do you have an explanation for the string of pearls Frank wears in the creation scene?  And, if so, have you ever heard of Polari? 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a debate. I'm simply asking that you provide some evidence which would support that the ideas expressed within the text in question came from somewhere other than your own observations. Please read WP:NOR. -- Krash 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of Wikipedia practices.  But I don't need an outside source to identify a pink triangle as a pink triangle, or a gragger as a gragger.  The first has become a gay pride symbol, but that wasn't its origin. (And everything known to mankind isn't yet on the internet). I have one source that may be able to get confirmation from (in London in the early 70's, it would have been obvious).  20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That note has now been removed as POV. Doesn't change the suggestion, however. (Is this thing on?). FiveRings 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Original Research. Unless theres a decent reference saying that the RHPS represents the holocaust, it should not be included, in any way. --Kiand 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust references in RHPS 

message: I changed the image in the Infobox to the original movie poster. (Ibaranoff24 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: The article states the movie deals with the topic of adultery.  How?  Janet and Brad are not married.  Cheating on a boyfriend or girlfriend is not adultery. Davez621 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheating on a fiance isn't adultery either. --Kiand 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not by definition, but most would consider it to be a form of adultery in spirit Riffraffselbow 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riff Raff and Magenta are brother and sister. Their embrace at the end of the movie is the reference here. Matt 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie deals with adultery??? 

message: I just tossed RKO Pictures into See also. I feel like there deserves to be more of an explicit connexion between the two. Does someone feel like throwing together a paragraph or so? samwaltz 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[RKO Pictures]]

message: The sentence, "Generally however, although most critics account this film as tripe, the groundbreaking dip into taboo ensures that it is a hit for the teen and pre-teen fanbase," seems really POV to me.  Also, pre-teen?  Really?  What 8-year-old do you think would be interested in this movie?  PacificBoy 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tripe? 

message: What's so great about it? --66.218.11.146 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Question 

message: I have added the "trivia" fact that similarities between the two are often commented upon by people familiar with both RHPC and the landmark absurdist novel Master and Margarita, and that there might be an inspiration.
--Misha bb 10:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks awfully WP:ORy.  Is there any at all notable source for the comparison? LWizard @ 11:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Notable sources" for it being "often commented upon"? It's not like this is saying RHPS is "taken" from Master/Margarita or anything. It's just stating the fact that the  two works are hugely similar, and this doesn't go unnoticed for people who've read the book and wathced the movie... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.30 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can you at least find me two separate places on the internet where the comparison is made?  I found one person who noted the connection, in an Amazon review.  You might also rewrite it to make it sound less like "Hey, I just noticed that. . ." LWizard @ 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... Well, I'm on it! :) This is not something I "just noticed", by the way, I've heard the similarity referred to many times - although I haven't seen it in writing, so far. It ought to be out there somewhere, though, because there is an astounding similarity. Although, maybe the people who review classic Soviet litterature for newsmagazines and websites ain't the same people who review RHPS (and the newsmags/websites who review classic Soviet litterature may not review RHPS at all). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.30 (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Master and Margarita]] 

message: This section has become much too long, and full of references from sources that are not particularly notable.  If we included every RHPS joke ever included in any webcomic then the list could go on for pages and pages.  If we must have a list, let's try to limit it to a few examples of significant RHPS references in popular media. CKarnstein 06:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a new page Rocky Horror references in pop culture? Break it down by genre (film, tv, comic, etc.) That way, it wouldn't clutter up the article, but serves as a place to warehouse info. samwaltz 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References in pop culture

message: Can someone fix the looooooooong sentence found at the start of the article?  hobbie 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Run-on sentence

message: I agree with AMad on this one -- either the external links remain, *including* the fan sites, or the external links are whittled down to official and historical sites. Personally, I don't think Rocky Radio should appear, as it has a habit of "disappearing" from time to time. The rest of the current batch of external links are very stable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ioniclobster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links -- Either All or None 

message: Hello.  I notice that you recently joined the Musicals project.  Please weigh in at the discussion at the New Girl in Town article's talk page.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical Theatre

message: The Rocky Horry Picture Show has run in Munich, Germany for 30 years now:
http://www.30jahre-rockyhorror.de/
http://www.museum-lichtspiele.de/cms/
88.217.3.67 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: 30 Years run citation 

message: A majority of the external links were moved to the RHPS Cult Following section, where they are more appropriate for Fan related sites. On this page external links make more sense if they pertain directly to the movie itself.--Amadscientist 22:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: These taglines are not notable. According to the Style guidelines, "As a general rule don't include taglines in an article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the film, create a section for it and describe its effects." It provides an example of this as Jaws 2's tagline, "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." which is indeed a notable tagline. The only taglines that are at all notable aren't notable because they're taglines, they're notable because they're memorable quotes from the movie.
But why does it matter? Because they are unprofessional and unecyclopedic. They make the article "all listy," which greatly detracts form its quality. This is why it has a clean-up tag. (As a side note, moving the lists to the bottom doesn't really help the problem at all.) Atropos 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the taglines are culturally significant they will be quoted in a published source. I'm removing them again, per WP:REF. If you chose to re-add them, please provide citations. --Gimme danger 03:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry for the confusion, my link wasn't right: Try this. See also WP:REF and WP:N and WP:NOT. Consensus is clear that these taglines should go. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I call those links consensus. By the way, with WP:NOT I meant WP:UNENC, I should have been more specific. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taglines

message: I am returning the Tagline list again. The Taglines from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" are both culturely significant (Don't Dream It, Be it, and Let's do the Time Warp Again, both used as song lyrics and later as tag lines for the film in Print advertisement are two of the most remembered Tags as well as the original "A Different Set of Jaws") and Quoted in publications such as Time Magazine and Newspaper articles from coast to coast including the Fresno Bee, Sacramento bee and Modesto Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle as well as the New York Times. There is also the book "The Rocky Horror Picture Show Book" by Bill Henkin. That does answer to both Arguements from above. I officialy dispute it's removal. This is an article about a motion picture not about an individual item. There is going to be at least two list in ALL articles about films. The cast and crew and if its a musical a song list. Where advertisement has a significant historical context or influence it is notable to add the list. The call was for a cleanup not just a mass deletion. Plus I recommend both of the above to add citations as I have. I am looking through alot of media and will be adding more.
I would like to now hear from a Wiki Admin on the subject as I believe it is the only way to end the dispute. --Amadscientist 05:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confused on an important part of wikipedia policy: admins are not in any real position of authority. Things are decided by consensus and an admin's opinion is worth no more than any users. As I said above, consensus is clearly against you and the inclusion of these taglines. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but you are incorrect about what a consensus is. Please see below to the Wiki definition of Consensus. Also A true consesus takes time. More than you are allowing, per Wikipedia policy. --Amadscientist 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus should not be for or against an individual but about the subject. --Amadscientist 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, your arguments are clearly wrong. First, the taglines were not used as song lyrics, the song lyrics were used as taglines. Also, the fact that there is a book about the rocky horror show that mentions the taglines does not mean the article should. Also, you will notice that many featured articles about films do not use lists for the casting at all, but instead do it in paragraph form. Atropos 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My arguement is not "clearly wrong" and you misinterpreted what I said about the songs "titles". I mention that they were taken from the songs and used as Taglines. I DO HOWEVER AGREE with you assesment of the article having been too "listy" and removed two lists for the following reasons. The cast list was doubled and there is no reason for all the variouse ratings from different countries. There was silence after this removal, which constitutes a consensus. --Amadscientist 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The taglines have no real cultural significance. Go up to the average boomer and ask him what movie any of those taglines reference, and you won't get any recognition at all. Think about it: the very definition of "cult movie" implies that little about the movie has widespread cultural significance. By the time you get to tertiary material like advertising campaigns, it won't have any. Give it the Leno test ... if Jay Leno made a reference to one of those taglines as the punchline of a joke, would the audience laugh? I think not. Kww 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag lines List re-added. Dispute of it's removal 

message: It would apear that a recent Clean up tag added to this article was not done so by Wiki Admin. But by member H2g2bob. No explanation given. While it certainly was true, I believe that the article has been cleaned up enough and I am now removing the tag my self. I will certainly not remove it again if Wiki admin decides it is needed but as of this time to much is being deleted due to the tag. --Amadscientist 20:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are being deleted because they are clearly against policy, not because there is a tag. The tag is notifying users and readers of the problem; removing the tag does not remove the problem. Again, members don't have any less authority to tag articles than Wiki Admins do. Atropos 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Those links are our justification. It is very clear that these taglines are detrimental to the article. Atropos
Also you have no idea what you are talking about. You have screwed up my wording about song lyrics and I doubt your informed about Wiki standards enough to pushing it on others. I repeat, just deleting the tag lines mean nothing! A consensus takes time not just two days. For all I know you contacted the other person. To reach a consensus you need more time and many more people. Untill my computer dies or you offer reasoning as to why these tags MUST be removed I will continue reverting the edit.--Amadscientist 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually you probably won't. Please familiarize yourself with policy. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. Why don't you justify the inclusion of these taglines? Prove that they should be there. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who added the clean up tag (June 2007) and why 

message: I put the peacock tag up because I really don't have the patience to go through and delete/alter them all. Or maybe I will after dealing with references. --Gimme danger 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are attempting to follow policy. That is all. Atropos 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Godwinized! Atropos 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the win --Gimme danger 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. --Amadscientist 10:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock terms 

message: There are still more citations need for this article. I have added the tags in hopes someone will add the need reference sources. I will also look for these, as they are not that difficult to find. --Amadscientist 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: Once the full protection is lifted there are some changes I noticed that need to be made. First currently the National Film Registry has 450 films in it's list not 475...actually that's it for right now. --Amadscientist 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh there was another item needed. The page only states the UK release and not the US release date which is September 26th, 1975. --Amadscientist 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections 

message: I've thought about this for a while and this is what I'm willing to agree to.
:1. A section called Impact which describes the cultural impact this film has had.
:2. In this section, the inclusion of information about the cultural impact of quotes from the film such as "Don't Dream It; Be It" and "Let's Do the Time Warp Again" which are not notable for being taglines.
:3. In this section, a sentence: One of the film's taglines, "A different set of Jaws" was included in a list of the one hundred best taglines.
:4. In this section, the inclusion of other information of the film's impact, including a predominant section on the cult following.
That's it. I'm fine with the information you've presented. I object to your argumentative presentation of the information. Atropos 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with that. I would rather leave the "Different set of Jaws" thing out because I find that reference to be completely unnoteworthy, but I wouldn't feel compelled to delete it. Kww 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either, but as long as thats all it says about it (rather than this bull about how notable it is), I'll be happy. Atropos 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. I was going to propose a consolidation of sections anyway. --Gimme danger 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Compromise 

message: As you fully know the section has been changed several times. A new consensus is now being attempted for what section as re-written. what you propose is that we revert to your last version. There is no arguementative writing. The section was Wikified by a member of the Project page, Musical Theatre. This is the version on the article right now. If you think I did it your against it. Your idea is really simply return the section to your version. --Amadscientist 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps his version of the article was the best so far? Kww 22:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not! I would never have edited in a version I thought everyone could live with. Atropos 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you made a mistake by attempting to add more about the cult following which was removed and placed in it's own page. We really don't need to add it back. And frankly you two are NOT acting in good faith at all. You both are using sarcasm and talking down. Both of which are not particularly nice either. Did I make a mistake in apologising for the Nazi reference? --Amadscientist 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I moved the section; I didn't add it. Atropos 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise was already made

message: Advertising Controversy and Impact
The original advertising campaign for screen and television was pulled by Twentieth Century Fox executives in the very early stage. They objected strongly to the use of the red lipsticked lips uttering the words Twentieth Century Fox. The original poster was also changed late into 1975 with the popularity of other more mainstream films. "A different set of Jaws" refers to the film Jaws (film), the iconic 1975 film. The tagline is listed among the "Great Film Taglines."[8] and has been associated with Rocky Horror for three decades. "Don't Dream It, Be It", a refrain from "Rose Tint My World", has not only been used as a tagline for the movie, but was used in an advertising campaign for Fredericks of Hollywood and has found its way into the English language in a variety of ways, including rap music.[9]--Amadscientist 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I noticed That in both the stage show and film "Don't dream it, Be it" is listed as a seperate song title and not just a refrain from Rose Tint My World on Wikipedia. Then again it is not listed seperately on Amazon.com for the Soundtrack. We do have a Rocky Horror Music expert that edits here perhaps he could add input and cite a source but for now I tend to agree with Kww, and perhaps that is something that needs correcting in the article as well. --Amadscientist 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the section we can all live with 

message: The article doesn't necessarily need an entire section about the National Film Registry. It could be incorparated at the very top. Something like this;
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 comedy musical horror film, based on the British musical stage production The Rocky Horror Show, with screenplay by Richard O'Brien and Jim Sharman. The film features Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon and Barry Bostwick. The film is considered as a cult classic, and a midnight movie. In December 2005, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington added The Rocky Horror Picture Show to the National Film Registry, a list that contains only 450 films.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 01:56, Jun 20, 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. --Gimme danger 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporate the information about National Film Registry? 

message: * Replace Tagline and Film Registry section with Advertising controversy and impact
* Incorporate film rgistry information with introduction section with corrected list number (450 not 475)
* Correct music list ("Don't Dream it, Be it" and "Wild and Untamed things" are not listed as seperate numbers)
--Amadscientist 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My tracklists show "Rose Tint My World" as the title for the whole floorshow section. What references do you have that show "Don't Dream it, Be It" as a separate number? Kww 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what number 3 means. You brought it to my attention in your line about "DDI,BI" being a refrain. That appears to be correct in all other sources. We just need to change the List In WikiPedia. --Amadscientist 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My computer automatically spellchecks anything in a writable application. So when I edit Wikipedia it underlines all the misspelled or weird words in the article, even ones I haven't written myself. It drives me nuts. Cutting and pasting into a word document and then spellchecking is what I did before I had this computer. --Gimme danger 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list after "Protection" Ends 

message: In just a few hours full protection of this article will expire. It is my hope that we are ready to add a section that everyone can live with. It may not be what everyone wants. It certainly isn't everything I want, but compremise has been made and a real attempt to satisfy all current objections has been attempted in good faith. I believe to come to full consensus we all most give as well as take. I know that I have given up many aspects of what I originaly wanted, but without sources there is no arguement that they should not be added. As for what citations are there I have made an honest attempt, on my own, to provide what I believe are good sources. There are many editors from the fan base that have added information in the past that are rumors or original research. It is sad that so much effort has been deleted. The article is several years old and yet has only had citations added in the past few weeks. Out of fear of stepping on toes I hesitated in changing sections that have had so much work put into them, however I know many that are reading this agree that proper sourcing is necessary for Wikipedia. There is a great deal of information that many people wish to include as well as information others wish to exclude. How we handle this in the future is what counts. Whether we can all edit as a consensus or continue edit warring is up to evryone envolved including myself. --Amadscientist 07:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection ends in a few hours...are we ready to edit in good faith 

message: I've looked at the last 20 or so edits to this page and read this talkpage. I still have no clear idea what you are in dispute about other than that it concerns taglines and perhaps the notability thereof. It seems a good idea to have a quiet discussion. Could those involved perhaps briefly outline what they perceive to be the problem and what their prefered solution is? Perhaps if everyone discusses the contentious issues a compromise can be reached? WjBscribe 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving things forwards

message: As I see it, the problem is opinion, verses sourced references. It started pretty rocky (no pun intended) with accusastions all around of violation of Wikipedia guidlines. Then quickly escalated to deletions and reverts, followed by re-writes which were followed by critisism. One may not be able to change opinion, but should be able to prove validity. The original problem seemed to be inclusion of the taglines list. It was written in prose to adhere to wiki policy, and many parts were droped. It was then re-written, but this time by a different editor from the Project Musical Theatre to Wikify it. The section was then changed again in a way that completely excluded all the information that was in dispute by one of the original editors of the opinion that the section was un-noteworthy. I then re-added the section and added citations which were quickly critisized. Then full protection was granted for edit warring. That was followed by further accusations of time wasting, and holding the article hostage. I wish I had a solution but all attempts that I have made for compromise have fallen through. Above is a version re-written with what I thought was approval from nearly all. The above section is NOT exactly what others wanted, but is Not exactly what I wanted either. Maybe it can still work. --Amadscientist 03:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amadscientist's perception of the problem 

message: Do whatever you want with the article, Amadscientist. I've been away for a few days and had some time to reflect, and arguing with an idiot is not my idea of a good time. Have a ball, I'm taking this off my watchlist. Atropos 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I give up