Wikipedia talk:Good article delisting

Hold on a second there!
What's this "we recommend trying about half a dozen edits" bit? That suggestion is barely a few days old in this whole dispute. Homestarmy 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And what's this impartiality thing at the bottom? Stretch that out, and i'm not allowed to even talk about a single article that even comes close to relating to religion or philosophical articles that have religious implications, since i'm a fundamentalist Christian who often has feelings about certain concepts like that in articles! I shouldn't even comment on many current events, since I happen to have strong feelings on many major world events! (Of course, i'll do it anyway) What was wrong with the major contributor idea? It solved the only dispute we've ever even had over impartiality in articles that really was major. Homestarmy 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Homestarmy. These additions are terrible. Who does "we" refer to regarding the half dozen edits? These changes, along with the changes to GA/R need to be reverted. Lara Love  T / C  04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "We recommend" is normal for non-prescriptive policy pages; I believe I first saw it on Five Pillars. The "we" is the community of Wikipedians. But I have no objection to the present scientific passive, except clumsiness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if nothing else comes out of this furore, this seems to be a reasonable addition. It is, after all, only a recommendation. I've replaced "impartial" by "not uninvolved", which should leave less room for misinterpretation, as this is the terminology used already. Geometry guy 11:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly reasonable tweak; what I meant to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we have this discussion just take place on the main GA/R page now, since that's now where the things in question are being, well, questioned? Homestarmy 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with LaraLove. LuciferMorgan 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why use a double negative? This is so unbelievably ridiculous. Why not just replace it with "involved"? And oh, please, yes. Let's move this to the GA/R page. I'm really curious to see what Jayron will have to say about this. I'm not sure if he even knows about it, as he's not had even one comment. Lara Love  T / C  06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?
What's the point of formalizing this?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to re-format the GA/R page so that this information was on a separate page but with more undiscussed rules added on, but that was reversed, this page no longer has much purpose. Homestarmy 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)