| Revision as of 20:26, 23 May 2007 editC mon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,576 edits →Edit war: WP:POINT← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:39, 23 May 2007 edit undoRaggz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,711 edits is the OR (1) incidental (2) minor (3) substantial?Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :I do not agree with the fact I would have to do the research by some date, it is not my writing. The idea of the tags is that problem will be solved by some one in the system and that until then readers are warned. | :I do not agree with the fact I would have to do the research by some date, it is not my writing. The idea of the tags is that problem will be solved by some one in the system and that until then readers are warned. | ||
| :What I think we/you should do is tag and template all the article you have problems with. Rewrite those OR-violations which you think are not controversial, in such a way that the logical nature of an article is preserved. As long as you delete introductory sentences of articles, without replacing them, I will revert your edits under ]. ] 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | :What I think we/you should do is tag and template all the article you have problems with. Rewrite those OR-violations which you think are not controversial, in such a way that the logical nature of an article is preserved. As long as you delete introductory sentences of articles, without replacing them, I will revert your edits under ]. ] 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Are we dealing with significant amounts of OR, in your opinion? If we agree on this - or not, it makes a difference in how to approach the issue. | |||
| :*1. Is the OR issue the main issue? | |||
| :*2. IF true, is the OR (1) incidental (2) minor (3) substantial? | |||
| :Substantial OR gets deleted, not tagged. So, in your opinion is the deleted materal OR? ] 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:39, 23 May 2007
Edit war
Raggz, I understand that you feel that the articles animal rights, individual rights, collective rights etc. violate wikipedia policy. Deleting the information is however not the way to address this. I advise you to read WP:POINT (which means do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point) WP:3RR (which states that if you revert someone else's edit three times you will be blocked for a given period), WP:DISPUTE (which explains how to solve disputes you have) and WP:OR. From these it is clear that random deleting information from wikipedia multiple times is not the way we solve disputes. C mon 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Raggz, first I did not write these articles, I am merely trying to protect wikipedia's stability and legibility, by reverting your actions. I am neutral towards the question whether these articles violate WP:OR. You are deleting the entire text of articles like collective rights or the introductory sentences of articles like Men's rights and animal rights, by doing so you are violating wikipedia policy, especially WP:POINT and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Please try to work in good faith and try to improve wikipedia instead of mutilating it so it meets some policy. If you have a problem with an article, make this clear with the use of template and tags, point out on the talk page what the exact nature of your problems is. C mon 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe that we have any dispute to settle. The deleted material was all original research, and you have not disputed this. If you claim that it was not original research, we can discuss the policy on that. The deletions were not content-related, so we need not get into that. I deleted text I agreed with and text that I disagreed with.
- I use [[fact|date=May 2007}} tags when there are areas that need work. This was not the case, whole articles, and multiple sequential paragraphs were original research.
- Compromise? I just label these articles OR at the top, and you do the necessary research by 15 June?
- So, do we have an issue? Is so, what is it? Raggz 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree with the fact I would have to do the research by some date, it is not my writing. The idea of the tags is that problem will be solved by some one in the system and that until then readers are warned.
- What I think we/you should do is tag and template all the article you have problems with. Rewrite those OR-violations which you think are not controversial, in such a way that the logical nature of an article is preserved. As long as you delete introductory sentences of articles, without replacing them, I will revert your edits under WP:POINT. C mon 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we dealing with significant amounts of OR, in your opinion? If we agree on this - or not, it makes a difference in how to approach the issue.
- 1. Is the OR issue the main issue?
- 2. IF true, is the OR (1) incidental (2) minor (3) substantial?
- Substantial OR gets deleted, not tagged. So, in your opinion is the deleted materal OR? Raggz 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)