Editing Talk:Occupation/Archive 1
Discussion page of Occupation/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::Concur. I'm not advocating the squelching of opinions, just that we should hash out the ideas out here on the talk, and then post what the consensus is. It's better for the article to read like there's a single voice, not like a message board. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:11, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | ::Concur. I'm not advocating the squelching of opinions, just that we should hash out the ideas out here on the talk, and then post what the consensus is. It's better for the article to read like there's a single voice, not like a message board. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:11, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Good point about the message board feeling. I already had the impression that those points read like a discussion on a forum, with a clear back and forth. Moreover some have a clear POV, with words such as "granted" and "I think". I removed those. Speculation has a place but it needs to be written from a neutral point of | :::Good point about the message board feeling. I already had the impression that those points read like a discussion on a forum, with a clear back and forth. Moreover some have a clear POV, with words such as "granted" and "I think". I removed those. Speculation has a place but it needs to be written from a neutral point of few --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 10:17, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
God, no. Once a question has been answered conclusively it's been our tradition to move the material to analysis. I'm sorry if I was overzealous in my attempts to clean this page up, but this kind of four-level back-and-forthing is unacceptable. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 11:48, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | God, no. Once a question has been answered conclusively it's been our tradition to move the material to analysis. I'm sorry if I was overzealous in my attempts to clean this page up, but this kind of four-level back-and-forthing is unacceptable. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 11:48, 13 October 2006 (CDT) | ||