Difference between revisions 37266 and 43515 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
User:24.150.61.63
Welcome to Wikipedia! May I call you "24" for short? [[Ed Poor]]
----
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;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)

I don't give a damn who likes me, my writing, or my attitude.  However, I am here to cooperate, and there's no point denying that one of the things that I'm here to change is the idea that NPOV always means compromise with socially prevalent errors.


I can prove to the satisfaction of any expert that "natural point of view" and "neutral point of view" are not the same thing.  :We are here to report on society, not to judge what its errors are and certainly not to attempt to change those errors. If you have a political agenda, which is pretty clear to the most casual observer, you may want to consider pushing this agenda in other forums. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

I can prove to the satisfaction of any expert that "natural point of view" and "neutral point of view" are not the same thing. 

:That's obvious. Your chosing the same initials NPOV for your unpopular policy is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]
⏎

⏎
The baby brother of these arguments is the ones about Eurocentrism, the middle brother is the arguments about dominator culture and mathematics, adn the big brother argument is that someone always knows what's "Natural" better than you do.

So, every new entry to wikipedia is going to change its political and ethical tone.  That's life.

(contracted; show full)I think that's the socially acceptable way to proceed... don't you?

BTWI like the "Orange Alternative" and I wish it was here at the moment...;-)


-----
This is to thank TheAnome, AxelBoldt, szopen and Ed Poor for recent exchanges, all of which have been enlightening.  And of course for the articles which get better as a result of your critiques.