 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Danzig article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Talk Page Archive (read before you post):
This talk page was archived by CQJ at 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) to assist in resolving differences between editors. Please visit the archives if you'd like to see the discussion that was here before, which was essentially a series of Enzigel and G.g beating the snot out of each other using words. See the archive for anything that transpired before this time/date.
- Admin Alert - Check out the history of this Discussion page, namely the difference between 08:17 and 08:33 on the 18th August. Enzigel added in comments and attributed them to me to try to pin it on me. G.g. 18 August 2006
- I didn't write the comment, It was unsigned and I presumed it was yours and you forgot to sign it, I checked history page again and found the real author. Don't waste your energy on such petty attempts for accusing me of faul play, and don't delete comments again...Enzigel 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
CQJ's comments
- Knock it off. Right now. I asked for a short explanation of the facts at hand, not this trundled out crap where you both basically fought back and forth for, oh, let's see...about four hours. So, it would appear that we're going to have to work the structured approach on this case since the loose, seat-of the pants style isn't going to work. You both need to visit the Mediation Cabal case page before I'll even lift another finger on this one and familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia policy. No more spamming my talk page, no more spamming this page, no more spamming the case page. This argument is going to effectively end right now before either of you two draw an administrator's attention here, and then there will be nothing that I can do to help either side of the issue except say "See, you should have followed my advice and kept it short, instead of starting another reversion war laden with personal attacks and incivility."
CQJ 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell who is doing what after the last edit series. So I've had the article protected to stop you and him from going back and forth. Now, as to the "his way or the highway thing", aren't you as guilty as he is? I don't find many people in violation of WP:3RR who aren't as guilty of edit warring as the next editor. By the way, telling other editors that they need help is a personal attack, directly against the spirit of WP:NPA, and this is your first and only warning in those regards. Don't let it happen again, please, because as the attacks continue to get worse, that increases your chances of ending up in Arbitration, which is a no-win situation to begin with. The article you pointed me to, G.g., on answers, is hardly NPOV or in line with our style. Nor are we a journalistic source - this is an encyclopedia. In addition, some of the edits you've contributed are as "fanzine" as some of the stuff that Enzigel's added. So let's knock that one off right now.
Other than that, I'm going to take the following action.
- I'm summarily archiving this entire page. It's obvious to me that you've both turned it into a rant for your own POV or edit wars, and the rest of the community, myself included, can't follow it.
- The page is protected, and I'm not contacting the protecting administrator to have it unlocked until you both show me that you're willing to play like big boys, and not like schoolyard children.
- I don't recommend continuing in edit wars, incivility, or personal attacks. Those actions will land you where you don't want to go.
- And I'm holding off doing anything else with this article until you both go to the MedCab case page and sign a gentleman's agreement to stop doing exactly what you've been doing. Call me strange, call me crazy, but there's no other mediator who will even consider touching this case with a ten foot pole if it's locked into an edit war and a textbook case of incivility, and if this action continues, you will be looking at the receiving end of administrator's enforcement action.
My justification for these actions is WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. CQJ 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Protected
After reviewing the last set of contributions, I've had the article reviewed by an administrator and full-protected. That means that no one but an administrator may make changes to the article, and whatever version of the article that is protected is not endorsed. I'll have the protection maintained until we make some headway here or at the case page. CQJ 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What I See
Here's what I see in the current form of the Danzig article. I don't expect oral arguments, so Wikilawyering at this time isn't appropriate:
- The citation tags seems to be a disruption along the lines of WP:POINT Is there a need for so much citation?
- Some of the language in the article seems to be anecdotic rather than factual, yet this alone doesn't call for the citation tags. We need to work on this.
- Fansites are out. They're WP:OR and fail WP:V.
Perhaps what I need to do is move this standing copy of the article over to my sandbox, crank on it for a few days, and then have you both look at it? CQJ 17:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think cites are needed at all. But I'm not sure if any of my edits will stay if i don't search source in a magazine. Hell, they don't stay even if I do find source. As for sandbox, I agree, hope you will consider objections I had in my last edit.Enzigel 18:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)