This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 12 May 2009 (Hi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:16, 12 May 2009 by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) (Hi)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hello, I am an American and I love democracy.
Karl Marx
If you look through history of the article and talk section, you will see that anti-Semitism section was much larger, with more pro and anti-Semite material. However, conclusion was reached that having such a large section on Marx's alleged anti-Semitism is a violation of WP:undue. -- Vision Thing -- 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because I would fell obliged to add back some of the removed accusations and the section would fast became very large again. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've responded in the article's talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
3RR rule
I am not sure if you are familiar with WP:3RR rule. Please take a look. The "revert" means undoing (in part or completely) work of other editors. The edits you made as an IP also count. Sure thing, I looked at the references and how they define this term. Please be constructive and provide a better definition if you can. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just to make sure. User:166.217.202.68 - was it you? Thanks.12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've already said I was editing under this IP before logging in. In any case, two of my reverts were putting back deleted POV and citation requested tags–this qualifies as legitimate under exceptions to 3RR. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC).
- Where are you seeing this exception? "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." My italics. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't edit against consensus. Everybody who posted on the talk page yesterday found problems with the article, and two out of three editors saw the article as biased. Digwuren, who did not participate in Talk:Neo-Stalinism deleted a citation request tag for the problematic definition of the article's subject, and Biophys removed a POV tag. I inserted those back in, which seemed an OK thing to do in regard to an illegitimate edit. Sorry if I got it wrong. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- My point (and the policy's) was only that even if someone makes a completely biased edit against a strong consensus, there is no exemption for reverting this. You cited the policy, and I had the impression that this was based on a misreading. The purpose of 3RR is to force people to look for alternative ways of dispute resolution, not to decide the issue. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. That was bad judgment. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- My point (and the policy's) was only that even if someone makes a completely biased edit against a strong consensus, there is no exemption for reverting this. You cited the policy, and I had the impression that this was based on a misreading. The purpose of 3RR is to force people to look for alternative ways of dispute resolution, not to decide the issue. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't edit against consensus. Everybody who posted on the talk page yesterday found problems with the article, and two out of three editors saw the article as biased. Digwuren, who did not participate in Talk:Neo-Stalinism deleted a citation request tag for the problematic definition of the article's subject, and Biophys removed a POV tag. I inserted those back in, which seemed an OK thing to do in regard to an illegitimate edit. Sorry if I got it wrong. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing this exception? "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." My italics. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've already said I was editing under this IP before logging in. In any case, two of my reverts were putting back deleted POV and citation requested tags–this qualifies as legitimate under exceptions to 3RR. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC).
- And how about User:166.203.202.83 and User:166.217.80.95? Was it also you? You should only edit under your account to avoid SP accusations.Biophys (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I was not logged in at the time. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
CfD
Hi, just some quick comments on nomination strategy. If you want a controversial nomination to be successful, you need more than a few editors saying "delete per nominator". You should give others who agree with you the chance to justify it with an original thought. And then there is this important Misplaced Pages principle: Editors who feel too strongly about a matter are generally wrong. I believe the most effective nominations are of the type: "I noticed this by accident, looks like it should be deleted for this or that strong reason. But it's not my field, so what do others here think?"
Oh, and you should also know that Category:Neo-Stalinism and Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations are not unique. I think your main arguments (except the last one about living people) also apply to Category:Pseudoscience, and I don't think there is a chance to get it deleted. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hello, Frank. It seems you can read Russian, and you said that you are a student. You look very much as an experienced wikipedian. Did you edit somewhere before?Biophys (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)