| Revision as of 08:05, 16 August 2013 editTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers401,365 edits ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:15, 16 August 2013 edit undoCrisco 1492 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators138,639 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| *I have removed the panties reference.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | *I have removed the panties reference.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *In terms of "too sprawling", I'd say it is sort of modelled after the most recent RFC that I have been in that seems to be successful: ]--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | *In terms of "too sprawling", I'd say it is sort of modelled after the most recent RFC that I have been in that seems to be successful: ]--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| **Check how that RFC was ''originally'' worded, before side issues started popping up. The current one is sprawling. — ] (]) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *In terms of "one-sided", I am open to discussion on anything that you might misrepresent an issue presented.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | *In terms of "one-sided", I am open to discussion on anything that you might misrepresent an issue presented.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *In terms of "insulting", it is still a draft and we have this talk page to iron anything out.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | *In terms of "insulting", it is still a draft and we have this talk page to iron anything out.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *Concise? Do you mean less background on the issues or fewer issues?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | *Concise? Do you mean less background on the issues or fewer issues?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| **Read ], particularly ]. — ] (]) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:15, 16 August 2013
Invited comment
This RfC seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen; it's both too sprawling and too forcefully one-sided, occasionally bordering on insulting ("the Nick-D and Ian Rose article type that has so many panties in a bunch"... "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project"). Tony, I'd urge you to have a third party draft a neutral, concise version of this instead; you can still post your version of events in the comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the panties reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of "too sprawling", I'd say it is sort of modelled after the most recent RFC that I have been in that seems to be successful: Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Good Article RfC--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Check how that RFC was originally worded, before side issues started popping up. The current one is sprawling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of "one-sided", I am open to discussion on anything that you might misrepresent an issue presented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of "insulting", it is still a draft and we have this talk page to iron anything out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Concise? Do you mean less background on the issues or fewer issues?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Read WP:RFC, particularly Misplaced Pages:RFC#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)