Difference between revisions 35092 and 35143 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
User:24.150.61.63
Some stuff by 24.150.61.63 which still needs checking (I'm reluctant to just delete everything, although (s)he's adding stuff so fast there may be no alternative):

*[[Blue-Green Alliance]]
*[[Bonobo]]
*[[Conservation movement]]
*[[Eco-villages]]
*[[Environmental movement]]
*[[Evolution of societies]]
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
*[[Gaians]]
*[[Great ape]]
*[[Greens]]
*[[Jane Goodall]]
*[[Libertarian survivalists]]
*[[Nearctic]]
*[[Neotropic]]
*[[New tribalists]]
*[[Smart growth]]

... and more, but I think I'll give up trying to list them. Note that the "This user's contributions" link above actually works (with the usual caveats), despite the fact that the user has no user name.

----

the user in question:  you don't seem too "reluctant", you are reversing careful rewrites without reading them apparently in defiance of protocol.

This one I edited first time without knowing the rules:
*[[Four Pillars of the Green Party]]
You are apparently also not distinguishing the generic "Four Pillars" (which may be adopted by any group) from the original FPOTGP as defined by European Green Parties - redirecting one to the other as if they were the same thing.

:I didn't redirect it - look at the [[http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Four_Pillars&amp;action=history history]]. It was 213.253.39.xxx who did most of the work removing your junk. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2002 Mar 22

If you want to keep playing a game, we'll keep playing a game.  I have no problem with rewrites, they generally improve articles, but I have a big problem with people removing whole articles of relatively uncontroversial stuff that no one else has bothered to define or research at all.  Also with people who assume that just because a political party advocates it, it mu(contracted; show full)

You may be the One True Messiah, and we may all be disastrously wrong -- but we don't believe that yet.

Our minds are open, truly: ''if you can convince us that what you are saying represents the real world, please''.

Please, attempt to reason with us with [[argument]], backed up with real-world [[evidence]]:generally quoting credible sources helps.

Otherwise, we have no reason not to believe that you are a lone nutter. [[user:The Anome|The Anome]]

⏎
----
24.150.61.63 (may I call you 24?)  I'm a card-carrying [[Green Party]] member, and I have to tell you, I really think you're going about making your points in a way that's more likely to get them deleted than listened to. May I suggest [[wikipedia: Wikipedia policy]] and [[wikipedia: Wikipetiquette]] for starters?  This is an evolving society all its own, and it has developed certain standards of interaction based on the Founding Fathers Larry and Jimbo. ;)  

We don't ask you to change your opinions, or even to not include information. However, there's a definite consensus againt including viewpoint ''as fact'', rather than "facts about opinions" as the [[NPOV]] has it.  Certainly you have your own paradigm through which you view all these events; I might even agree with you on some of it.  However, you cannot demand that this encyclopeda adopt your paradigm. It has its own: the attempt to portray a "balanced" summary of the current state of human knowledge.  

It also has a fair number of academic and scientific sorts working on it, which means that academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed. Luck to you in future contributions! [[user:-- April|-- April]]