There is no point in clogging up the wiki list with a constant re-analysis of the [[Communist state]] debate. But for the record, The Cunctator's statement that his "impression was that 172 and Jtdirl were upset by the claims about Communist states Fred was making and that they then decided to use the argument that they knew what "Communist state" meant and Fred and anyone who disagreed with them didn't" is factually incorrect. I made it clear on over thirty occasions (if not forty occasions - I stopped counting after a while) on the talk page that my problem was that Fred was adding in material to the wrong page. I said it. 172 said it. Tannin said. Tarquin said. Others said it too. If I was trying to censor Fred, I would not have created a linked page containing his text.
That there was a problem with Fred's text was admitted by Fred himself who called it "unbalanced". I deliberately did not intervene in the debate on the linked page. My only interventions there were in fact to recreate it when The Cunctator decided to remove it and plonk it back on the wrong page. The issue Fred was writing about was about a practical analysis of how how communist governments behaved. That is an issue worthy of in depth discussion, and has been discussed on the linked page, on which Fred and others contributed. As that page would not exist if it was not for me, I can hardly be accused of censoring Fred's opinions. All I did, as other people did, was to point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and put it onto the right one.
Now can we all please move on to other issues, and stop having to respond to blatent mispresentations of what happening and wild, unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue accusations.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On 5/15/03 6:15 PM, "james duffy" jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
There is no point in clogging up the wiki list with a constant re-analysis of the [[Communist state]] debate. But for the record, The Cunctator's statement that his "impression was that 172 and Jtdirl were upset by the claims about Communist states Fred was making and that they then decided to use the argument that they knew what "Communist state" meant and Fred and anyone who disagreed with them didn't" is factually incorrect. I made it clear on over thirty occasions (if not forty occasions - I stopped counting after a while) on the talk page that my problem was that Fred was adding in material to the wrong page. I said it. 172 said it. Tannin said. Tarquin said. Others said it too. If I was trying to censor Fred, I would not have created a linked page containing his text.
Erm. Wasn't the argument that Fred's text was on the wrong page that he didn't understand what "Communist state" meant?
That there was a problem with Fred's text was admitted by Fred himself who called it "unbalanced". I deliberately did not intervene in the debate on the linked page. My only interventions there were in fact to recreate it when The Cunctator decided to remove it and plonk it back on the wrong page. The issue Fred was writing about was about a practical analysis of how how communist governments behaved. That is an issue worthy of in depth discussion, and has been discussed on the linked page, on which Fred and others contributed. As that page would not exist if it was not for me, I can hardly be accused of censoring Fred's opinions. All I did, as other people did, was to point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and put it onto the right one.
And writing
"reverting to Shino's version to remove Fred's POV vandalism."
"reverting to Pratyeka's last version to remove Fred Bauder's constant POV vandalism of this page. Do it again Fred and you'll be put on the annoying users page"
"THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A POLITICAL SCIENCE DEFINITION. IT IS NOT ABOUT COMMUNISM. ATTEMPTS BY FRED BAUDER TO ADD IN POV ANTI-COMMUNIST RANTS WILL CONSTANTLY BE REVERTED"
"dumping more of Fred Bauder's vandalism. If he keeps this up he will have to be banned from wiki"
"PLEASE BAN FRED BAUDER FOR CONTINUOUS VANDALISM OF THIS ARTICLE. HIS VANDALISM HAS HAD TO BE REVERTED NEARLY 20 TIMES HERE. HE HAS DONE THE SAME ELSEWHERE"
"deleting irrelevant POV rubbish. How many times does Fred Bauder have to vandalise this article before he is banned?"
"Is there any chance that Fred Bauder might some day grasp what NPOV means."
"THE STUFF YOU KEEP PUTTING IN IS ALREADY IN ANOTHER ARTICLE. STOP SCREWING UP EVERYONE ELSE'S WORK TO PUSH YOUR OWN AGENDA"
to just name the comments used in your edit summaries. I can't help but think that's something more than "All I did, as other people did, was to point out that Fred was putting his text on the wrong page and put it onto the right one." But maybe that's a blatant misrepresentation.
Now can we all please move on to other issues, and stop having to respond to blatent mispresentations of what happening and wild, unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue accusations.
Are you saying I'm making wild, unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue accusations? Good way to work constructively with others.
By the way, I didn't accuse anyone of censorship, even though you seem to be implying that I did ("I can hardly be accused of censoring Fred's opinions").