| Revision as of 00:49, 12 December 2005 editMattley (talk | contribs)1,698 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:31, 12 December 2005 edit undoBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 edits →Deletion of talk page comments on []Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| == Deletion of talk page comments on ] == | == Deletion of talk page comments on ] == | ||
| You might have asked me about it, you know. I didn't mean to delete them and did so by accident. Assume good faith, ] | |||
| You might have asked me about it, you know. I didn't mean to delete them and did so by accident. Assume good faith, ] particularly in the case of editors who have spoken up on behalf of edits you made and attempted to get other editors to give them more attention . You may feel hard done by some editors on ], but I am surprised you feel you have a problem with me. I'm also very surprised that you want to make common cause with ] whose edits show a completely different set of concerns to your own. KDRGibby is engaging in a full-scale revert war: your edits are getting caught in the cross-fire. Be patient and we can all discuss them. I have said before that I think there is merit in your alternate version, and I think many of your changes ought to be included. However, first we need to get some stability back on the article. ] ] 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I did not attribute a motive for your deletion of my comment on the talk page. In the talk page, I merely pointed out that it should not be done, and when asked if anyone had done so, I simply pointed to the facts. I accept your statement that the deletion was an accident. | |||
| particularly in the case of editors who have spoken up on behalf of edits you made and attempted to get other editors to give them more attention . | |||
| :I assume that your speaking up on behalf of edits I have attempted is due to at least partial agreement with those edits. I don't see that I owe you any more or any less assumption of good faith based upon agreement that you may or may not have with my POV. | |||
| You may feel hard done by some editors on ], | |||
| :The top of the page I am currently editting reads: | |||
| :: that anyone can edit. | |||
| :It appears as though there is a bloc of editors in ] that believes they have the right to prevent others from editting. | |||
| but I am surprised you feel you have a problem with me. | |||
| :You seem to be a member of the bloc of obstructionist editors, in part because of your reversions, and in part because you do not speak up against these reversions, in part because, rather than spend your time trying to deal with the plentiful shortcomings of the ] article, you choose to spend it raising RFC's against minority POV's, and in part because you have shown an unwillingness to agree to abide by principles that are designed to avoid edit wars. | |||
| I'm also very surprised that you want to make common cause with ] whose edits show a completely different set of concerns to your own. | |||
| :One of my concerns is that articles develop NPOV. ] expresses a minority point of view. If his POV is significant, then it seems that it is entitled to, and deserves representation. I am concerned that the editors of ] are insufficiently concerned with NPOV, and wish to exclude alternative POV's from expression. | |||
| KDRGibby is engaging in a full-scale revert war: | |||
| :KDRGibby introduced new text. The revert war was initiated by those who reverted. | |||
| your edits are getting caught in the cross-fire. Be patient and we can all discuss them. I have said before that I think there is merit in your alternate version, and I think many of your changes ought to be included. However, first we need to get some stability back on the article. ] ] 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It is good that you wish stability in the article. One of the ways stability might be achieved is by establishing NPOV. Reverting the expression of minority POV's, which you condone and practice, makes it difficult to achieve NPOV. (] 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 20:31, 12 December 2005
Marx and Engels on Russian Revolution
Gee, Marx wasnt even consistent with his own logic if he says a revolution could happen in Russia. I didnt know that. I mean, I already thought the logic of marxism was highly flawed given more information on market operations, but man! (Gibby 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
- Gee, maybe your understanding of Marxism is incorrect! (BostonMA)
It seems like it. But feel free to edit the FMC part, contsructive criticism is welcome. Deletion is not. :P (Gibby)
- Article is locked. I actually think that is a good thing at the moment.
Deletion of talk page comments on Talk:Communism
You might have asked me about it, you know. I didn't mean to delete them and did so by accident. Assume good faith, BostonMA
- I did not attribute a motive for your deletion of my comment on the talk page. In the talk page, I merely pointed out that it should not be done, and when asked if anyone had done so, I simply pointed to the facts. I accept your statement that the deletion was an accident.
particularly in the case of editors who have spoken up on behalf of edits you made and attempted to get other editors to give them more attention .
- I assume that your speaking up on behalf of edits I have attempted is due to at least partial agreement with those edits. I don't see that I owe you any more or any less assumption of good faith based upon agreement that you may or may not have with my POV.
You may feel hard done by some editors on Communism,
- The top of the page I am currently editting reads:
- that anyone can edit.
- It appears as though there is a bloc of editors in Communism that believes they have the right to prevent others from editting.
but I am surprised you feel you have a problem with me.
- You seem to be a member of the bloc of obstructionist editors, in part because of your reversions, and in part because you do not speak up against these reversions, in part because, rather than spend your time trying to deal with the plentiful shortcomings of the Communism article, you choose to spend it raising RFC's against minority POV's, and in part because you have shown an unwillingness to agree to abide by principles that are designed to avoid edit wars.
I'm also very surprised that you want to make common cause with User:KDRGibby whose edits show a completely different set of concerns to your own.
- One of my concerns is that articles develop NPOV. User:KDRGibby expresses a minority point of view. If his POV is significant, then it seems that it is entitled to, and deserves representation. I am concerned that the editors of Communism are insufficiently concerned with NPOV, and wish to exclude alternative POV's from expression.
KDRGibby is engaging in a full-scale revert war:
- KDRGibby introduced new text. The revert war was initiated by those who reverted.
your edits are getting caught in the cross-fire. Be patient and we can all discuss them. I have said before that I think there is merit in your alternate version, and I think many of your changes ought to be included. However, first we need to get some stability back on the article. Mattley 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is good that you wish stability in the article. One of the ways stability might be achieved is by establishing NPOV. Reverting the expression of minority POV's, which you condone and practice, makes it difficult to achieve NPOV. (BostonMA 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))