Talk:Boy (album)

message: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? A recent addition included a second score, bringing the total scores in the box past the limit of 10, and the total Rolling Stone reviews to two represented in the box. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fuck it. If you all want to make this article a touch bit tacky while pretending to ignorance of clear-cut guidelines, go for it. It is merely a U2 article, after all. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? 

message: * No - MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template: "Include no more than ten reviews in table form ... keep a neutral point of view".  Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  !Votes 

message: The ratings template was not made to pay tribute to the popularity of any one source,  Dan56 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fuck it. If you all want to make this article a touch bit tacky while pretending to ignorance of clear-cut guidelines, go for it. It is merely a U2 article, after all. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: reverted in its entirety my addition of a "Legacy" section discussing retrospective appraisals of the album, along with "Retrospective review" scores in template form; my revisions also added a few scores to the section discussing "Contemporary reception" of the album. No reasoning was given in Walter's edit summary; he instead chose to immediately open an ANI complaint against me. This, along with his past bad-faith accusations towards me, impairs my faith in his ability to discuss this with me civilly. So I am opening a request for comment, for other editors to help decide this. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *, I assume your response was addressed to Dan56 and not to me, Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *, Dan56 made a bold edit and you reverted that. It is past now. Please move forward and explain why you think Dan's edit was inappropriate and what, (if any) is your preferred version of the content that Dan added. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *    . It's hard to assume good faith when other editors ping on talk pages of articles that have been on your watchlist for years and they don't read what you've already written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Walter Görlitz, AGF is not optional, Unless there is strong evidence of blockable offence or a policy violation that should be reported, editors are expected to join the discussion instead of attacking each other.   is not referring to the content but more of an attack,  again is offtopic comment on RfC. Only  is a short one liner comment addressing the concerns. Please remember every time you write a comment on the talk page, the audience is not just the target of the comment but every editor who in future reads that discussion. Personally I would have appreciated if you elaborated your response and made a strong enough argument. This discussion will probably be referred to, in a future RFC, if both of you are not able to reach an amicable solution to this dispute. So please comment keeping that in mind. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * You need to learn to read. I'll let you read what I wrote again. The first is not an attack, it's a clear statement to explain why I went straight to ANI. That the editor upset me and I used poor language to explain what I think of the editor's additions is also not a personal attack. That I believe this is not a valid RfC is not off topic. Feel free to explain why. Please remember that every time you make an ignorant comment, I die a little inside because I have to respond to you. In short, you're nto helping at all. In short, as a member of the albums project, I have not seen an album article's response broken into two sections. I may not work on a lot of "classic" albums, but I'd be happy to see a few. A quick search shows that this does exist on :The Beatles (album) and :Abbey Road, but not :Let It Be, while something similar is at :Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I suppose I shouldn't have started with the albums at :List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums, because there's nothing like this section at :The Wall, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should this addition of a "Legacy" section have been reverted? 

message: * No Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: *Why did you go directly into an RfC instead of holding a regular discussion on this talk page? This seems like a pretty aggressive thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *, I assume your response was addressed to Dan56 and not to me, Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *, Dan56 made a bold edit and you reverted that. It is past now. Please move forward and explain why you think Dan's edit was inappropriate and what, (if any) is your preferred version of the content that Dan added. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *    . It's hard to assume good faith when other editors ping on talk pages of articles that have been on your watchlist for years and they don't read what you've already written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Walter Görlitz, AGF is not optional, Unless there is strong evidence of blockable offence or a policy violation that should be reported, editors are expected to join the discussion instead of attacking each other.   is not referring to the content but more of an attack,  again is offtopic comment on RfC. Only  is a short one liner comment addressing the concerns. Please remember every time you write a comment on the talk page, the audience is not just the target of the comment but every editor who in future reads that discussion. Personally I would have appreciated if you elaborated your response and made a strong enough argument. This discussion will probably be referred to, in a future RFC, if both of you are not able to reach an amicable solution to this dispute. So please comment keeping that in mind. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * You need to learn to read. I'll let you read what I wrote again. The first is not an attack, it's a clear statement to explain why I went straight to ANI. That the editor upset me and I used poor language to explain what I think of the editor's additions is also not a personal attack. That I believe this is not a valid RfC is not off topic. Feel free to explain why. Please remember that every time you make an ignorant comment, I die a little inside because I have to respond to you. In short, you're nto helping at all. In short, as a member of the albums project, I have not seen an album article's response broken into two sections. I may not work on a lot of "classic" albums, but I'd be happy to see a few. A quick search shows that this does exist on :The Beatles (album) and :Abbey Road, but not :Let It Be, while something similar is at :Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I suppose I shouldn't have started with the albums at :List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums, because there's nothing like this section at :The Wall, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion