Difference between revisions 43515 and 43556 on enwiki

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]]
⏎
  [list way out of date, deleted, click 'user's contributions']
... 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:
(contracted; show full)

That will not work.

:Actually, I didn't mean we shouldn't have articles on [[Nearctic]] and [[Neotropic]]. (They do, however, need to be properly written.) I just meant that we should delete all your stuff as the easiest way of dealing with it for now. It would be great if someone would come along and convert all your stuff into something encyclopedic, but I don't see this happening at the moment. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2002 Mar 22
⏎
:: I haven't seen Zundark around, so evidently he found an "easier way"...


----
OK, the term "undo" should not be confused with the term "delete" but I hear whta you are saying.  I figured this out myself and went mostly to one-liner stub-type articles.  Some, like 'ecology movement', were cut down to that but left senseless.  Now the only thing it says is that they became Greens - but the fact that ecology movements still exist or what they believe is gone...

(contracted; show full)

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]]
:I agree, April, that 24 can be damaging to his own cause, while Zundark is there like a bull in a china shop at the other end of the teeter-totter.  The true NPOV is likely somewhere in between.  [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]
⏎
::somewhere between Natural point of view, and the current French or German mass media view maybe.  


-----
24 here:  I don't object to a single blessed word of this.  In fact I'm very pleased that you're on the case.  It shows there is a consensus process here, that it's not unanimous (i.e. always blocked until a dictator shows up), etc.

I'm also pleased that "academic standards on references and scientific rules of evidence are quite often invoked when a point is disputed."  That's as it should be.

(contracted; show full)

: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]]


::all I want to push is you - back into the math which you understand, and out of the politics and philosophy that you don't.  Everyone has a political agenda, and mine is reflected in my choice of subjects, and sources, not in advocacy.  Among sane people, the body and its surrounding ecology are real, and mathematics and physics are fantasies that create nuclear weaponry somehow.  In a safe happy world we'd likely abandon the math and physics and spend more time on dance or gardening.  The errors of US or EU society are not the errors of real human society, which they have lost.  Accordingly it is normal that you would see "a political agenda" in something that reduced your own relative power.
⏎

⏎
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]]

::It's plenty popular with the six billion people on Earth who see themselves as victims of the US mass media and its true believers.  Sorry to disappoint, Ax baby, but "natural law" and "natural sciences" preceded "neutral" by a lot.
⏎

⏎
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.