User talk:Solidgower

Your reversions to Amir Taheri could be considered vandalism, because they have been done with no discussion on the article's talk page. Please discuss these changes before making any more reversions. Thank you, Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The edits to the Taheri entry are not vandalism. A very active discussion, with which I wholly concur, has been going on on the talk pages of the various editors editing the entry.  Please see their talk pages to get up to speed.


 * First, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your typing. This automatically puts your name and the date/time of your post.  Second, please indicate where you have participated in the discussion.  As far as I can tell, you have simply been trying to revert to a previous version that runs against consensus.  I honestly can not see how you are making the article better.  Perhaps we should take this whole discussion to the article's talk page.  BTW: You keep deleting the template that informs editors that the article is semi-protected.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ursapien
Everyone keeps suggesting to take the dispute to the talk page, yet no one participates in the discussions in the talk page once their version of the article is live. The best manner of resolution seems to have the other side offer compromise language. The Taheri-critic side (5 or 6 editors at least) have made several attempts at compromise language, only to have them summarily reverted by editors who will have none of it.

To get this thing resolves, they need to submit compromise language instead of reverting.