Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3

Refactored page

A Kiwi's request to remove "senseless clutter".
Zeraeph removed A Kiwi text, including her Strong Keep
A Kiwi responded didn't expect you to use a meat cleaver. :o))Yeah, I'd like to see the good stuff put back in, even if I've said it better since. Makes my "strong keep" now look like a rather shallow knee-jerk opinion without any basis.
I restored A Kiwi's text and Strong Keep and urged use of talk page.
Zeraeph deleeted again.

Refactored text removed to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/special archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also preserved here Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/special archive‎ as explained [1]. --Zeraeph 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome‎ archival by consent

Zeraeph's post about A Kiwi at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia after 3 requests to resolve this on talk, and not on my page:

If you had any objections to this strategy, why did you not mention them on WP:AN/I? That omission totally bewilders me. --Zeraeph 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't know what "strategy" you're referring to. 2) Please use the talk page as suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you withold your objection to the archiving of inappropriate personal speculation by consent, while posting so much on WP:AN/I?--Zeraeph 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the FARC refactored, let an independent party do it based on consensus; it is not appropriate to remove someone else's Strong Keep, and A Kiwi clearly objected to the "meat cleaver" and the weakening of her keep. "Withold my objection"? "Inappropriate personal speculation"? Please make yourself more clear, and please do so on the appropriate talk page. I am not interested in this tangle between the two of you, and I need to ask you to confine it to the talk page of the article in question. The two of you should read and understand WP:TALK and work it out on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did NOT remove her "Strong Keep" as well you know, I left it with it's timeline, related to her later, more objective, arguments. If she request that I restore specific text, at ANY time, I will do so, along with the redress.

You still have not answered my question, why did you not raise the slightest objection to the archival of irrelevant personal discussion on WP:AN/I and yet findf plenty of time to discuss my Yorkshire terriers? --Zeraeph 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs clearly show you removed A Kiwi's Strong Keep commentary, and she clearly objected to the meat cleaver and said she wanted it put back (see diffs above). I am left guessing still what you mean about me not raising an object, but if this is what you are referring to, 1) AN/I is not the place to raise archival of a FARC page (try WT:FAR), and 2) you're assuming (wrongly) that I read that post. I spent the afternoon up to my ears in the very difficult task of manually converting references on Stuttering, which required my full concentration. I have just now read AN/I. At any rate, you should never remove someone's commentary, and certainly not a Strong Keep from a FARC. If you wanted to refactor it, you could have reversed the order of what you did; propose the refactoring to A Kiwi on a talk page, and do it after she agrees. She has indicated consistently for several days that she is ill, that she's having a hard time keeping up, and your deletion gave her a chunk of work to contend with. I don't know why you're so hung up on me remembering you mentioning two Yorkies while we were looking for images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, this [2] is, in fact, what User:A Kiwi said.

At this time I am prepared to endorse any version of User:A Kiwi objective comments, as soon as she endorses it herself. As someone who holds a diametrically opposing view it would be ridiculous and unfair for me to produce that version. However, I am certainly not prepared to replace irrelevant speculation about who my personal physician is and how familiar he is with my home and I do not share your view that such information is of paramount importance to an FARC.

Why have you not answered my question, why did you not raise the slightest objection to the archival of irrelevant personal discussion on WP:AN/I and yet find plenty of time to discuss my Yorkshire terriers? --Zeraeph 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere except into a timesink. Would the two of you like for me to propose a refactoring in my sandbox, which both of you can view and discuss in one place? Or if I do that, will I again be accused of "micromanaging your editing"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I am so so so sorry about my stupidity. It never occured to me to ask "What talk page?" I deleted it completely, the edit summary saying it was posted to the wrong talk page. I hope that is okay. I am so embarrassed, you would not believe how red my face is.

Now to proceed -- I now retract my former agreement Zeraeph's suggestion on the FARC page and insist that all of my portion of the deleted and relocated dialogue be immediately reverted to it's original condition. I recognize the right for Z's and anyone else's possible deletions, including yours, to also be reverted immediately.

I did not understand much of any policy about what can and cannot be dealt with on a FARC page and have had my knuckles rapped. I will never forget again and when Z brought up all this personal stuff again on the FARC, it never occurred to me that the issue was inappropriate and simply responded to her. And I am appalled that she has totally ignored my request that she reinsert my initial entry .. minus, at most, anything personal in terms of identifying info in that Strong Keep comment.

And now that Marskell has explained what can and cannot be removed from a FARC page, I recognize that it is not up to either Z or I to be creating new Wiki policy.

So even though this is on a different page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Asperger_syndrome, I request that my former inappropriate granting of my "Yes" be ignored and my implied permission to the changes made to the FARC page content be fully and completely rescinded. Kiwi 23:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiwi, neither you nor Zeraeph are helping the problem by spreading this issue to yet another talk page. Please stop. Use the appropriate talk page. Our goal is to create a good article. Because both of you are spreading this all over the place, I will no longer respond anywhere except the indicated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck commentary since A Kiwi moved it from Talk:Asperger syndrome to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiwi, thanks for responding here. I'm sorry all of this work has been created when you're not feeling well. I offered to help, and I'd prefer to see the two of you come to a compromise to focus on the essentials relating to WP:WIAFA, but Z has clearly rejected my offer on my talk page. I can't restore the comments for you, as I can't edit war with Zeraeph. Your options are to restore them yourself, ask an admin like LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) to restore them for you, or hopefully, Z will agree to work out a mutually agreeable refactoring in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I am happy to resolve the whole situation ANY way A Kiwi wishes, as long as you stay out of it, because I feel you actions are only serving to exacerbate a problem that was actuiallt resolved before you interfered. However, you still have not answered two very reasonable questions:

Why you did not raise this on WP:AN/I, if you feel so strongly instead of raising my Yorkshire terriers?
What essential information you feel mistaken speculation about who my personal physician is adds to FARC?

--Zeraeph 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone to that special archive page, removed ALL personal stuff and corrected grammar to correspond, corrected some spelling and have it ready, but know that Z needs to look at it first. So, where do I put it for her to see? Please be specific with actual link. Kiwi 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi, as long as you have removed all the personal stuff about me, it is TOTALLY your call what you put back, I have NO say in it, YOUR own opinions are what you must express, and you are the sole arbiter of those. I can't help thinking that, left to ourselves we would have resolved this hours ago. But if you want, email it to me and I will even post it for you to show endorsement. --Zeraeph 00:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]