Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abstract labour and concrete labour: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:59, 16 March 2014 editJurriaan (talk | contribs)11,915 editsm reply← Previous edit Revision as of 14:15, 16 March 2014 edit undo212.64.48.162 (talk) →A concernNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
Jurriaan, why have you repeatedly added ? It is absurd and obviously false. To the extent that the cited source actually says so, we shall have to stop relying that source in other articles. ] (]) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Jurriaan, why have you repeatedly added ? It is absurd and obviously false. To the extent that the cited source actually says so, we shall have to stop relying that source in other articles. ] (]) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


:::: Bob Rayner, why do you keep deleting text, and vandalizing this article, without explanation or reference to any sources? I will combat your criminal, corrupt activity as much as I can. Obviously I have not placed articles here free of charge only to see them ruined by incompetents. ] (]) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC) :::: Bob Rayner, why do you arrogantly keep deleting text, and vandalizing this article, without any explanation or any reference to any sources? I will combat your destructive activity as much as I can. Obviously I have not placed articles here free of charge, only to see them ruined by incompetents. Before you have another explosion of shit in your brain, please consider that the purpose of this article is to explain the concept of abstract labour in an accessible, accurate and scientifically responsible way, noting different interpretations and important controversies about the concept, where relevant, in an evenhanded manner. If you want to contribute constructively to this project, you are welcome, but if all you want to do is wreck other people's work, while making propaganda for your own favourite idea, please desist. If not, I will have to annul your edits, until an arbitration procedure is started up. ] (]) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:15, 16 March 2014

WikiProject iconSocialism Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The introduction was too long so I put everything except for the first sentence into the first section called "Origin". I've also moved the picture from the upper right to the left of the first section. I'm not happy with that place, but it seems to be the least worse.--Tomvasseur (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tidied up the notes and references in the text that I wrote.Jurriaan (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A concern

Jurriaan, why have you repeatedly added this? It is absurd and obviously false. To the extent that the cited source actually says so, we shall have to stop relying that source in other articles. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob Rayner, why do you arrogantly keep deleting text, and vandalizing this article, without any explanation or any reference to any sources? I will combat your destructive activity as much as I can. Obviously I have not placed articles here free of charge, only to see them ruined by incompetents. Before you have another explosion of shit in your brain, please consider that the purpose of this article is to explain the concept of abstract labour in an accessible, accurate and scientifically responsible way, noting different interpretations and important controversies about the concept, where relevant, in an evenhanded manner. If you want to contribute constructively to this project, you are welcome, but if all you want to do is wreck other people's work, while making propaganda for your own favourite idea, please desist. If not, I will have to annul your edits, until an arbitration procedure is started up. Jurriaan (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories: