* sigh * Is there no end to Fred's inability to grasp facts? For the VERY LAST TIME, the page in question was merely concerned with a political science definition of the the term [[Communist state]], in terms of the link between constitutional system and party in the process of governance. IT WAS NOT ABOUT COMMUNISM. Everyone on wiki could grasp that. The entire planet could grasp it. Fred still cannot. The stuff he wanted in was as irrelevant to a mere 'definition' as putting details on Bill Clinton and interns would be in a page on the definition 'Federal Republic'. Detailed discussion of what happens IN a communist state, or IN a federal republic, belongs in a page on history and politics IN those states or systems, not on formal definitions.
Fred's problem with 172, Tannin, myself and others is that we would not allow him in effect to vandalise an article by putting in 100% irrelevant stuff when it belonged elsewhere, and when all the wiki users on the talk page were screaming almost in unison 'not here. Put it somewhere else'. (His reponse was to keep plonking the badly written POV addition onto the wrong page nearly 20 times, until people threatened to call for his banning, when he finally stopped his bizarre behaviour, to everyone's relief.) As to the other stuff, most of it was OTT POV. Those bits that weren't were being put in the wrong parts of articles, and yet again no matter how many wikians collectively screamed at Fred 'not there. Put it in a different paragraph' he ignored them.
172 may indeed hold rather stronger left wing views than most people. But he is also a professional historian who tries to apply academic standards to what he works on, including such basic requirements as accuracy, relevance, proper location and definition. On the basis of his behaviour in the last few weeks, Fred doesn't know the meaning of the words let alone how to apply them. Now issue closed. I am backing 172 to become an admin.
BTW Fred, you still haven't apologied for libeling people who disagree with you by calling them the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. And if you are going to use terms like 'Historical revision', try to understand what it actually means.
JT
Historical revision is not limited to Nazis. But don't put on the steel boot unless it fits. I was doing my best to write a truthful neutral point of view article which could have have been made more balanced by adding more material about the achievements of the communist state not by removing material about its problems. Its the repeated removal of factual negative material which is the issue regarding 172.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail