Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 2

Dispute
It will enable us to establish community consensus as to whether we should have an article on "La La" or not. There's no other way to resolve this. For my part, I'll respect the result of any VfD debate. Everyking 11:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to take it to VfD, that's entirely your choice. I'll be monitoring the case to make sure both sides of the issue get fair representation if that is the way you decide to go, though. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 11:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * But I want to know if you'll respect community consensus. You seem to be evading that question. Everyking 11:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Reene's response, I'd like to put forward some new ideas about this article, which for the time being remains unprotected. This whole dispute weighs heavily on me and worries me greatly, because I had been working hard on this article and its associated pages, and enjoying that work, but now I feel like it's all in jeopardy. I think we should agree that any edit to the article that might be controversial should be discussed here on talk first, to see if there are any objections. I'll make that pledge myself, to describe any major changes I plan to implement here first and wait for others' reactions, and if others will make the same pledge, I think we really can get this up to featured quality and avoid a revert war and protection at the same time. I don't think it's far away from featured status, really. And we need to bring up specific issues. That's been a huge problem throughout this whole dispute: I can't fix things unless people tell me what to fix. So if people don't like the inclusion of a certain quote, they should C&P it here and discuss why they don't like it, and what might be added instead of it, if anything. Everyking 11:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. That's taken directly from the page you go to every time you click "edit this article". Nothing is "in jeopardy" here either. Nobody is talking about blanking the page or even anything close to it. Nobody here wants to do anything BUT improve the article. And may I remind you that you have been presented with no less than three things wrong with the article, so don't pull that "nobody told me" act. You accuse me of acting in an offensive or insulting manner? At least I'm straightforward about it- I'm not pulling an "injured innocent better-than-you" act like you seem fond of doing here.
 * If you choose to VfD it, I'll go with whatever the consensus is but only if you will too. But that still doesn't address the issues and it won't magically fix everything. I also refuse to accept "community consensus" if to you that means that the article is fine as it is. It isn't. Remember, VfD is only there to decide whether an article should be there to begin with, not whether or not it's fine as it is. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 11:49, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I want my work to be edited mercilessly, but only if that editing improves the article. I reserve the right to mercilessly edit an article to restore it to a better condition if necessary, as do we all. I'm happy to see you say you'll respect consensus, but worried to see you say that it won't address the issues. Of course it will address the one issue at hand, which is the issue of whether La La should have an article or not. Once we settle that issue, one way or another, then we can deal with improving the specific articles. I don't think La La is fine as it is; I have more work planned there. I do think this article is more or less fine as it is, it could use a little work in a few areas, but a massive overhaul would only damage it, in my opinion. However, if others disagree, I'm committed to hearing them out. I just want us all to work things out on talk before we do anything to the article itself. Also, Reene, you've been very hostile to me from the beginning. What do you say we adopt a mutual tone of civility from here on out? Everyking 12:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Others do disagree. They've told you why they disagree. Stop pretending these concerns do not exist. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 12:40, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I also want to say that I will respond to no further accusations that I am controlling the article, or that I somehow "own" it. By responding to such things, which as anyone can tell from reading this talk page are patently absurd, I fear I've fuelled discussion that is basically nothing but personal attacks against me that really have little to do with the article itself. Clearly John and Reene think I'm a horrible person for God-knows-what reason, and they can talk to me all they want on my user talk page or through e-mail if they like. But I want to get this particular dispute resolved, and that can only be done by addressing specific attributes of this article. Everyking 12:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Your opinion has been registered, Hemanshu, but nothing will come of it as long as I'm watching this article." That's a quote from you. On this very page. And you claim that you're not trying to control the article?
 * I'd also appreciate it if you do not assume what I do or do not think. It is extremely rude and will go nowhere in resolving these issues as you claim you are so keen on doing. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 12:40, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * All right, Reene, maybe you don't think I'm a horrible person, I don't know, all I know is that you treat me with pure contempt. And yes, I absolutely do claim that I am not trying to control the article. It is others who are trying to restrict me from editing, not the other way around. Everyking 12:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm always sardonic in manner and speech, but I reserve extra contempt for people I perceive to be perched on some kind of self-appointed pedestal. If that offends you, well, in the immortal words of another user: "tough titties." Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 12:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * On this point I am in agreement with Reene. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And you two can have all the contempt you damn well want, I don't care. I'm beyond trying to understand the negativity towards me. If you aren't concerned with improving this article, I kindly ask you to remove it from your watchlists and quit bothering me. If you are, please do what I asked above and quit this campaign of endless insults. Everyking 13:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been concerned with improving the article. I've hit a wall when it comes to you though. You've been maintaining the position of being steadfastly against anyone making edits to the article. This has been apparent since the second I even suggested I was going to touch it.
 * I'm attacking your actions and what you have said. There is nothing wrong with this- it is actually encouraged if you've bothered to read the policies and guidelines concerning this sort of thing. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 13:27, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. I'll be responding to you no further unless you want to begin discussing the article. Direct your insults either to my talk page or to me through e-mail. Everyking 13:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay then. I've probably made a good enough case against your poor conduct on both talk pages. Just know I'll still be responding to and correcting any statements you made that are in part or wholly false (intentional or otherwise). It's only fair, after all. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 13:41, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Version Poll
Since both sides can't come to an agreement on how to discuss the recent edit without resorting to an revert war, maybe a polling the community might help? This still would depend if each side would accept the outcome of the community consensus of the poll of which version is displayed to readers. How long should the poll last? Shard 00:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyking's Version

 * 1) Shard 00:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I've never said my version is flawless, but it's better and more complete than Reene's, and the more complete, earlier version should be the starting point for any discussion. Everyking 02:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pros

 * This album is Ashlee's debut album. Including as many details such as the quotes, reviews, week by week sales amounts, interviews, etc... helps inform readers, especially those who know nothing about the album.  I don't see how adding all those quotes and citations can make the article less readable or cumbersome. Shard 00:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a poll is a good idea
This is not an either/or thing, it's a content dispute that requires discussion, not a policy that needs to be voted on. Polls are a limited tool in reaching consensus -- sannse (talk) 00:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've thought about what you've said. I tried to find something to disprove it, but only found evidence supporting your statement.  If it didn't work in Talk:FOX News/Archive two, then it probably won't work here.  Thank you. Shard 06:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)