Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Striver

Below is a "Request for comments" for User:Striver. See User:Striver/strivers version for his side of the story.

Striver frequently places unsourced/unsourceable material in articles as though this material were factual. He disrupts, as near as I can tell, every page in which he participates. Many of his edits and comments and even his [edit summaries] have a strongly sectarian bias, and the persistent chaos he has brought to discussions of how best to achieve NPOV in articles related to Islam have been notable (and exhausting). See, for instance [[1]] 9 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

Striver has been consistently disruptive, biased, and prone to chaotic edits at Sahaba

Description

Consistent POV bias toward Shia beliefs and practices, attempts to turn the article into a forum on Shia vs. Sunni traditions concerning the companions of Muhammad. Frequently presents Shia traditions as factual and shows severe sectarian bias.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Evidence of disputed behavior

Sahaba

3 July 2005

9:38 [8] Made hundreds of edits in [[Sahaba article, turning it into a list of Muslims the Shi'a dislike, with much invective, exaggeration, and bad spelling. Cleaned up by BrandonYusufToropov.

4 July 2005

17:09 [9] Striver reverts and resumes editing.
19:09 [10] Zora reverts to BrandonYusufToropov version.
19:14 [11] Striver reverts.
21:15 [12] Mel Etitis reverts to non-Striver version.

5 July 2005

12:05 [13] Striver reverts.
12:50 [14] BrandonYusufToropov reverts to non-Striver version, adds two version template.
21:49 [15] Zora rewrites, trying to explain why identifying companions is important.
23:06 [16] Striver mostly accepts Zora's rewrite, but re-adds sentence re 100,000 companions.
23:08 [17] Zora removes sentence, saying that it is implausible and unsupported.
23:11 [18] Striver reverts.

6 July 2005

00:21 [19] Striver adds para contra Zora.
03:24 [20] Jayg removes controversial sentence and para.
10:15 [21] Striver re-adds controversial sentence.
10:26 [22] Mel Etitis reverts to Jayg.
10:44 [23] Striver reverts.
15:15 [24] Jayg reverts to Jayg.
15:29 [25] Striver reverts.
16:56 [26] Mel Etitis reverts.
20:45 [27] Zora, after research, rewrites in hopes this will settle dispute.
21:24 [28] Striver accepts rewrite, but adds claim re 100,000 companions.
21:40 [29] Jayg removes Striver's claim, warns re 3RR.

7 July 2005

13:49 [30] Striver removes POV tag and re-adds sentence.
15:42 [31] Mel Etitis readds POV tag, removes sentence, sets up two versions template.
16:34 [32] Striver re-adds sentence.
16:40 [33] Brandon rewrites, keeping claim but softening.

8 July 2005

07:18 [34] Zora at first reverts, then reconsiders and revises article so that claim is presented as Shi'a claim, academics disagree.
11:55 [35] Striver rejects revision, reverts.
12:05 [36] Brandon reverts to Zora's version.
13:09 [37] Striver reverts to Striver version.
13:21 [38] Brandon reverts to Zora version.
13:44 [39] Striver reverts to Striver version.
14:42 [40] Zora reverts to Zora version.
22:55 [41] Striver reverts to Striver version.
23:15 [42] TShilo12 reverts to Zora version.

To be done:

Muawiya I Umar al-Khattab Ali ibn Abu Talib Yazid I

(By the way, I recognize it doesn't reflect edits to Sahaba, but just so people can get a sense of the kinds of things we're dealing with, see also this disputed edit at Ali ibn Abu Talib, which is quite representative of the challenge we're facing in dealing with Striver. This kind of thing is likely to show up in any Islam-related article at any time; he apparently has quite a lot of time on his hands. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Zora 9 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
Mustafaa 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC) - I appreciate Striver's efforts to increase Wikipedia's coverage of Islam-related topics; some of his edits have been good, and many have helped highlight a notable POV that tends to be underrepresented here. However, he shows no signs of any sort of discrimination between reliable primary sources and "sources" as ridiculously unreliable as a random chat forum, and prolifically inserts quite obviously POV material that anyone else would automatically dismiss as propaganda (as, for example, in [43]) as if it were universally accepted fact. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
john k 22:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC) I've not engaged in discussion much with Striver, but I've tried to follow his edits, and it seems as though 90% of what he is doing is inserting often ludicrously biased Shia POV into articles on Islamic topics. I haven't looked at all of his edits - Mustafaa may be correct that some of them are good - but nearly all of the ones I've looked at have been pretty egriously bad. And because of his energy and the extent to which he does this, some of these edits have been kept for days. john k 22:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
gren 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC) - like Mustafaa, I admire his peseverence but do not find much of the content to be suitably sourced or unbiased. gren 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC) - I'm sure that fuller coverage of Shi'a beliefs would benefit Wikipedia's Islam-related articles, but Striver does not seem to be able to do so in a NPOV way, nor does he seem to understand Wikipedia's requirement for credible sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer ^TALK 14:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC) - Ditto Jayjg and Mustafaa's comments.
--GNU4Eva 13:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC) It's just that, it seems like each modification or update to the articles are small building blocks, and Striver comes and knocks down the blocks and starts over himself. He's got a lot of energy and of that can be properly channelled, it would be really beneficial.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

See User:Striver/strivers version for his side of the story.

Striver 12:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Did anybody read my version?[reply]
Yes. BrandonYusufToropov 14:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tomer ^TALK 14:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. gren 12:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis' view

Striver has indeed been insistent on his position, and has sometimes acted too hastily, and without due concern for consensus. However, I think that this RfC is too hasty itself; the diffs in the #Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute section are no such thing — they're simply examples of people arguing with Striver (sometimes rather violently, to the point of personal attack). I've been involved in some of this, and have sometimes found Striver to be exasperating, but I've also managed to work reasonably amicably with him. I strongly suggest that this RfC be withdrawn as premature, and that the Users involved try to interact with Striver in a calmer and more collaborative way; lead by example.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--StopTheFiling 23:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Comment -- It's conceivable that this RfC may have happened anyway, but the Sahaba article wasn't the best example to use. StopTheFiling 23:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 'Comment Striver has a clear pro-shi'a POV. This is not a crime in itself I think, there are other people who have a strong POV too. I have worked with Striver on e.g. the Mutah article and I admire his erudition and perseverence in work. I agree with the above people. I think this is another attempt by a select group of people to silence critics and push their pro-Sunni POV and is a clear misuse of he Wikipedia system.[reply]

Thank you for you comment, i appreciate it. I would also like to tell you to take a look at this: [44] --Striver 12:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was hasty just because of the sheer volume of articles that were being affected. If it was less than 5, then that would be ok. But what basically is at stake is the entire Islam section, because eventually everything will have a Shia POV and a Sunni POV, and no other section in WP that I could find is dealt with in such a manner. --GNU4Eva 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ... if people have occasionally gotten testy here, it's because of two factors:

1. The vast number of patently disruptive edits with no attempt at consensus. It's like Normandy on D-Day.

2. Striver's apparent inability to create a single coherent English sentence.

It's a really unfortunate combination: "I am attacking all of these articles more or less simultaneously without discussing them, and I am insisting that someone else clean up the horrific prose that bobs in my wake. Any other course of action means people are suppressing the Shia viewpoint."

I don't think I'm the only one who is annoyed by this approach. Yes, that annoyance sometimes shows. BrandonYusufToropov 17:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats wrong in having both the Shia and Sunni pov in all Islamic articles?

by the way, that is the firs time my admited poor english is addressed in this Rfc.

The concensus part... remeber Zora and the 100 000 sahaba thing? You and i agreed, Zora refused.

quote from my talk with User:StopTheFiling [45], [46]

This is what the Budhist User:Zora refuses me to have on the Sahaba article:

There is broad agreement among Muslims that there were, under this definition, more than 100,000 Sahaba.

Now, take a close look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=18336321&oldid=18336234

Did you see who wrote that? it was User:BrandonYusufToropov, a sunni!

I get so damn angry that a Budhist can supres information a shia and a sunni agree on!

did you read his comment?

style edit -- everyone ok with this? (Also, I believe there is universal agreement on the part of Muslims on precious little)

read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=next&oldid=18336321

the Buhdist reverts and writes:

Dang it, no pious fabrications as fact

So... it basicly commes down to that i work on to manny articles? --Striver 17:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher article quality, better English, and more research, instead of hadith cut-n-paste, would slow you down, and that would be a GOOD thing. While we're mopping up after you in one article, you're attacking or creating fifteen more. Usually no one minds a prolific editor as long as he/she is creating good, useful, solid articles -- but when the editor is just creating messes that take much longer to clean up than they do to make, dealing with the messes feels like trailing after a hyper-active toddler in wine-glass exhibit. It seems to take you five minutes to create messes like Events with Muhammad: 1 and days, and many other people's time, to VfD it. Zora 10:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that I hadn't been monitoring Striver's activities, and thought I'd check to see just how many new articles he was creating. It's a daunting task. He seems to be averaging 500 edits every four days or so, many of which are edits to the same article. I think I've counted some thirty or more articles created on various figures in Islamic history or jurisprudence in the last week, most of which are stubs. Many of them ALSO are going to have be renamed, since he's including honorifics in the article title. All of them require cleanup. Some of the figures may not merit having their own articles. Then there's an explosion of articles on various aspects of Islamic marriage law, articles with titles like Divorced for the third time, Triple talaq, and Hadiths related to Mut'ah. All of these should be folded into a much larger article on Islam and marriage. In just a few days he has created messes that will take weeks or months to clean up. We'll have to decide whether or not the subject deserves an article, deserves to be merged, do the research, clean up the language ...

Could we ask Striver just to create one article a WEEK? That would give the rest of the editors working on Islamic topics time to go over his creation and bring it up to snuff, merge it, delete it, whatever. Better yet would be if he ASKED someone if it were a good idea to create an article first, since IMHO, he has no concept of what's encyclopedic and what's not.

For an example of Striver's thought processes, see his user page, User:Striver. His latest thing seems to be conspiracy theories, which he is elaborating on his user page and also trying to interject into various articles re current events. Zora 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized -- yes, I'm pissed off and cranky and unbalanced in this matter. Striver is a very different kind of animal from the usual angry POV warriors. After I've given him grief, he'll say "thank you sister!" when I correct something to which he's objected (and I've agreed that he's right). In many ways, he really DOES seem like a hyper-active toddler -- he's enthusiastic, destructive, lacks discrimination, and lacks malice. I'm getting cranky because I feel like the adult who has to make sure that Wikipedia is correct. Which is a sure recipe for burnout, I believe. Anyway, I apologize for the spleen I've displayed during this RfC process. Zora 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, the list of things "i am" just expanded to include "POV warrior", "hyper-active toddler", "non-adult" and "animal" . Nice. What kind of animal if i may ask? Anyway, apologies accepted for the parts you did make a apology.--Striver 23:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, based on Zora's comments, above (and leaving aside labels and whether they're accurate), is there anything you feel like doing differently from this point forward?BrandonYusufToropov 09:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should just clarify something, though: while most of Zora's comments should really be retracted (and apologised for), her use of "animal" is a standard English usage with no derogatory implications. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said he seemed LIKE a toddler, and then used four words: enthusiastic, destructive, lacks discrimination, and lacks malice. Two of those are positive words or phrases -- two of them are negative. I was trying to convey that I felt that Striver had pluses and minuses (as do we all). The intent wasn't name-calling, but if it sounded like that -- well, it was probably my exasperation showing again, and I apologize.

I'm intellectually aware that unless someone happens to be monitoring RECENT CHANGES at the moment someone creates a new article, there's no way to keep silly new articles from being created. A distressingly large proportion of Wikipedia articles are probably pointless, badly written, etc. etc. I shouldn't be upset when a few of them fall into my purview. I shouldn't feel that I have to fix them all. But ... I can't help caring. Zora 10:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I share almost all your feelings — but while you can be as enthusiastic as you like with your positive comments, the negative ones are governed by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Mel's comment

On the User:Striver business, I don't think you should take my (unfortunate) habit of obessing on my own edits as evidence that no one has tried to work things out with him. I am guessing this is just a case of me not supplying the proper links. (First timer on this.)

For evidence that people have indeed tried and failed to work things out with User:Striver, see [47], [[48]] and many other pleas from more tactful and less self-obsessed editors than me. BrandonYusufToropov 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

If i understand it correctly, there are four points of Criticque against me:

I create manny articles.

Thats right. Zora thinks most of them are non-sense. She is entitled to think so.

She have put nearly 10 of them up for Vfd. She is entitled to that.

But im not going to start any less amount of articles, since all articles i start have a well thought motivation for being there, in my pov. And she has not been able to reach any consenus agreeing with her pov regarding the Vfd. One or two of the articles i created should have been merged or sent to wikisource, but thats it. Thing is, Zora just puts them up for Vfd when she mearly whants them merged or renamed. And then accuses me for waisting peoples time on articles that need Vfd.

I over-reacted to the scope of your new article creations. I was overwhelmed when I saw what you'd been doing. I should have consulted with someone before doing all the VfDs. Most of the articles up for deletion are a couple of sentences or a para long, and should be folded back into a main article, if they're worth keeping. If that can be done without a VfD, well, that would be better. I thought, however, that you had to do a VfD to completely get rid of the old article before merging it.

Having slept on it, I think I know what's wrong: your new articles don't "bud" off an old one in an organic way. Unless it's a completely new subject, hitherto untouched by Wikipedia -- which would be rare -- what usually happens, it seems to me, is that the main article gets longer and longer, until someone says, "This is ridiculous, let's move this section into an article of its own and just link to it". But the text should be mostly THERE before you create the new article. If you think that an article might be created on the topic, it's enough, surely, to just put brackets around the term, so that it shows up in red as a stub. If it becomes clear that an article isn't needed, you can just delete the brackets, without having to go through a VfD. Creating the article as a one-sentence stub, just to have created it, isn't necessary. Striver, if you want to discuss Marriage in Islamic theology, law, and practice, or whatever, jam as much into the main article as you can. If you then find that one section is grotesquely longer than the others, so that it's making the article lopsided, THEN it's time to break it out as a separate article. Not before. Don't just start out with grand schemes, like putting all the hadith into Wikipedia as Events with Muhammad - 1, etc. Zora 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My grama sucks.

Yes, so what?

She is insinuating that i shoul not create or edit articles since i ruin her prose or creat sub adult prose. Whadever. This is wikipedia. Its much easier to fix my grama then to make the research i do. Proof: Before i came, the articles i created did not exist. Now they do exist, but with "sub adult grama". Well, in my pov, its better to have a article with bad grama the not having them, specialy since all "adults" can fix it in short time. Although some "adults" prefer to make a vfd that involves manny people over a week, rather than just fix whadever annoys her. Or ignore it, since it wasent ther before anyway. But grama has not killed anybody. Not even shortened their life span.

When you write badly, either it's left as is -- which makes the article much less useful and creates a nasty impression of Wikipedia on anyone who sees it -- or someone else has to fix it. You are making work for other people. You don't seem to care about that. Zora 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for those who missrepresent or not even represent the shia view. We are both entiled to our weaknesses.

When someone writes without representing the shia pov, either it's left as is -- which makes the article much less useful and creates a nasty impression of Wikipedia on anyone who sees it -- or someone else has to fix it. They are making work for other people. They don't seem to care about that. --Striver 21:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i do lots of revert.

Yes, so what? If i belive im right, im not going to let incorrect information pass. However, i have learnet a bit more of wikipedia and now see that its more effective to make some one with a default opposing view to me acknowledge my claim and then put it in the article. Like the born in Kabaa episode, Zora could just whatch as it was inserted by Mustafaa.

We aren't finished with that, Striver <g>. Zora 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edit lots of diffrent aricles on the same day, and make a lots of editions to each one of them.

that because when i read a of-site article for research, i add the material as i go on. Many times does a off-site article contain information relevant to several WP articles, so i add them to the correct article as i go and read. Thats my technic - Somebody else might just focus on a single article and write everything from the top of the head, however, i always consult another article and try to not insert anything without sourcing every bit of information. Most times, i succed on doing that. Say for example that im reading a articel about Mut'ah, and they mention something about Umar that is not directly relevat to Mut'ah. Then ill take a short pause and insert that bit into the Umar article and then continue with the Mut'ah article.

Peace!

--Striver 12:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution

Striver, would you be open to considering writing the articles somewhere else first? Like in a text editor or in the sandbox, before opening the articles in the WP? If you realize there are problems with them, or more information to be added to them, that way you're not letting Wikipedia display badly-written articles. Additionally, the edit window comes with a "show preview" tab, which allows you to see what the article will look like before you save it, so you can correct malformed wp markup. Additionally, since you admit that your English is bad (I would, without meaning to sound insulting, say "atrocious"), would you mind, when you make additional articles, or make changes in articles with spellings you're unsure of, that you notify someone like BYT whose English is nearly as impeccable as mine (and is certainly likely to know more about the subject matter of most of your edits) to go through and proofread it? This will eliminate the "bad writing" complaint, as well as the feeling that some editors have that they have to "follow you around and clean up after you". As for the POV issue, I recommend that all interested parties merely comment the questionable text out, and go to talk IMMEDIATELY, rather than just saying "rm POV" and hoping nobody will notice, and don't use edit summaries as a substitute for TALK either. Once there, try to keep it amicable, recognizing that if we all always agreed about everything, there would be no POVs, no Buddhists, no Shia, no Sunni, etc. (or all of us would be one of those or any number of other whatevers). Let's try to keep the namecalling and assumptions of limited as well. Does this sound workable to you (Striver)? Tomer ^TALK 20:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ill try to use more of the workpad solution you mentioned, and after im done, ill tell somebody with better english that may latest contributions might need a cleanup. But ill do that only on my major edits, i cant be expected to "ask permision" for every single thing i do and every minor edit i do. As for deleting text, i rarely do that. However, ill try to use the talk page more often.

One thing you folks with impecable english need to aknowledge, is that there is no prerequisit for writing even good english to be allowed to write in wikipedia. With that said, you should appreciate that i make a "half article", that is i make the research half and you do the grama half. And if you dont feel for cleanup me: dont. It that simple, you dont work for wikipedia, you dont earn money and its not your resposibility. There is a demand on my side to not write pov and biased, i can eventualy get in truble for that, but as far as bad gramma, i have nowhere seen any policy or demand from wikipedia that i need to meet certain english standards to be allowed to write. Only advices on that issue, but no demands.

With that said: The next time anybody expreses that i should improve my english, do know that im fully entitled to ignore your plee. You are not demanding anyting from me that i am expected to meet. And make sure that it shows in your attitude that you are expecting a favor from me, rather than belive you are acting as a representative of wikipedia, enforcing one of its rules: You are not.

I get pretty upset. Its not becuase you are wrong. Since you not, you are right, and im the first to admit it. The reason im uppset is that you ask something that you have no right asking. For example: A beggar should clean his hair and get a jobb. But nobody has the right to tell him that. He is allowed to be a lowlife, if he wants to. Not implying that me or anybody else is a lowlife, just trying to illuminate a point

When you act like a "lowlife", it reflects on all the rest of us. Someone who is trying to use Wikipedia to find out more about Islam is not going know which are Striver's articles and which have been worked over by the other editors. They're going to take one look at your English and say, "These Wikipedia editors are idiots who can't even spell or write comprehensible English. I certainly can't trust anything I read here." Your edits make the rest of Wikipedia look bad! If you're going to take part in a group enterprise based on consensus, you should at least TRY to cooperate with the other editors and TRY to produce work of an encyclopedic standard.

I agree, and have agreed all along, that a great many of the Islam-related articles in Wikipedia are Sunni-biased. We do need a Shi'a perspective. We do need to root out bias. But you can do that in the talk pages, y'know. There are some of us who do listen. Or you can LIMIT your editing to one or two articles a week, and give the other editors time to work over your prose. If you truly want to make sure that the Shi'a perspective is shown in its best light, you should welcome the help. Zora 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen me get angry at you guys since you make little to no effort to research the Shia pov and represent it? It certanly is expected that a encyclopedia represents that, but it is not your duty to fix. In the same way, it is expected that a encylopedia haves a impecable grama, but its not my duty to fix that. Period. I am entitled to write as much half-baked english as i feel for, in the same manner that you are entitle to present half baked representation of the Shia pov.

As far as me anoying you by writing in half-baked english: Tuff luck.

Same goes for me, i get mighty annoyed when i see Shia pov being so blatantly missrepresented or even not represented, specialy before i came here.

Ok now that i have enlightened the ground rules with harsh reality:

you need to remeber this: i rarely "mess up" existing work. i dont take the Umar article and delet everything and rewrite it in atricious english. i simply ADD new stuff in atrisous english, the same way manny people add their pov but do little or no effort to complement with the shia view. Actualy, remeber this: I dont garble existing prose, but anons delet shia pov. Have you ever seen anon to just garble prose without changing content? rarely. But most surely have you seen anon delet shia pov representation in the shia pov section.

And to round it upp:

I will most certanly try to make you less irritaded and i will most certanly try to heed your whishes, and i will most certanly try to improve on my gram, both for my sake and for your sake. And i hope you consider that the next time you bring upp this point, and i hope my efforts to meet you att half the way is responed with a equal step from your side. And ill try to inform people when i make articles, so that they wont need to feel that they need to search them upp.

Peace!

--Striver 21:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with english usage, grammar, or spelling, add the {{copyedit}} tag to the top of the article after making your edit, and someone will (eventually) come and fix up the usage/grammar/spelling.

The main point of issue here is not your spelling, but issues about neutral editing. Editing should be done as neutrally as possible. This does not mean that views should not be represented, but that the views of one group should not be presented as truth, or the majority view, unless there is extremely substantial evidence to support that it is. Likewise, articles should not be presented as US vs. THEM, this is both polarising and simply renders the article difficult to read. We are not writing political pamphlets, but an encyclopedia - a reference work.~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is all this going?

Just curious, because I see no resolution in what should be done, possible solutions or if we even ha ve a problem.... --GNU4Eva 14:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the boiling blood has cooled. Striver agreed to try to do more pre-editing (see above), and to request that someone check over his grammar etc. before posting large new edits. As far as I am concerned, the issue is closed, at least for now. I can't speak for others on the issue, and as far as I'm aware, Brandon, who opened this RfC, is still on a family-concern wikibreak. Tomer ^TALK 05:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)