From: rednblack@alum.mit.edu Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
First of all, my opinions and RK's are wildly divergent.
Though they converge as for reverting :-)
As to the current Islamism article, it was a replacement of RK's previous version, which stevert was fighting with him over. I don't think steve has stepped in since then much, maybe because he finds
the >current version more satisfactory, or maybe because he >grew bored with the article.
This is him to say.
My objection to 142 is not over content, but rather this:
142 decided that "Islamism" was not a neutral term. I don't know why he decided this, because he never bothered to respond to my queries on that point. Thereafter he hacked up the Islamism article and
moved >chunks of text around unilaterally. My debate with him >over "militant Islam" notwithstanding, this is hardly >acceptable practice.
Oh Graft, I must respectfully say that it is quite often done a practice, though it is here done in a bolder way that done usually. Everyone, one day or another, is bold to the point of what can be perceived as rudeness. Just today, I did some moving around on the french wikipedia, on this summer heat wave article, that was felt as too bold by one of the author. Us being in good relationship, he gently told me I disturbed him.
You also were very bold with me once. I spent many hours writing a - imho - well researched, informative and attributed article. But I did not write everything that was to say on the topic ("always leave something obvious to add..."). You then explained to me on the talk page that while the article was obviously lacking some aspects, I should also *drastically* reduce what I wrote.
You also added "I agree the trading issues might be very important for you europeans, and maybe even for us americans, but they are not, by far, the only important factor surrounding GM food."
As you say, the trading issues are very important to us Europeans; I would even dare say essential. Kat confirmed it was very important in saying "The trade aspect is a major source of frustration for U.S. farmers who see export markets close to them whether the individual farmer should choose to grow GMO grain or not. A discussion of GM food would be incomplete without it."
The fact it was only one factor, and apparently not very important, was only an opinion of *you*. And the fact some of the other factors were missing was not an argument to remove half of my article, but rather for someone to complete the parts missing.
If I did it very in-depth, it was because I am aware of the depth of lack of understanding american people have over why europeans had a moratorium. This - imho - required precisions.
But anyway, in short, we were two people supporting keeping the article as such. You were alone stating it should not, and saying I should drastically cut in what I wrote for it was not being very important.
The next thing I knew, you had amputated the article, and moved the whole part that did not suit you, with no consideration of my own position, with no acknowledgment of who had written the whole bit, and with no fixing both articles properly to introduce the notions covered in the other article.
basically, this is called a consensual agreement with the 33% winning the case. This is also "moving chunks of text around unilaterally."
Notice, I don't hold bad feelings toward you for having done that, though I was unhappy of that, but again, respectfully, I must insist that boldness happens, and does not necessarily lead to an edit war or asking protection.
Understand that my dispute with 142 is not an ideological one. My dispute is over the style in which 142 operates. He took an existing article, rewrote it willy-nilly with little justification, got in two edit wars over it (with myself and RK, who have little ideological common ground), then listed us both on [[Wikipedia:Problem users]] and went ahead with other reorganizations and article-creations without any discussion.
It is very unfortunate you got in an edit war with hir. I would not hold getting in an edit war with RK as being very...err...well...never mind.
As for being listed on problem users, I would not mind that too much if I were you. People who know you are confident you are ok. I hope it did not spoil your best day too much :-)
Thought : Aoineko and I often list each other on problematic users on the fr :-)
I am unclear exactly in what ways the current "Islamism" article is not neutral, and I am uncertain how it could incorporate such inchoate notions as "why?" people become radicals of any stripe. I think the article does attempt to give SOME answer as to how people are pushed into increasingly radical
directions >(although there's no discussion
of Algeria/France right now, which is a major flaw.
But does it give these people point of view on how they perceive themselves, what they think as being said extremists ? Does it describe in which way, the so-said non extremists perceive them as extremists ?
Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it/them, so maybe you can fill in the >gaps?)
Thank you very much for your trust, but I am not currently willing to be called a vandal again :-)
I readily acknowledge that the current "Islamism" article has profound failings and needs a lot of work; I also acknowledge that I am not an expert on Islamism, just a guy who has read a few books on the subject. I have no problem with more knowledgable people improving the article.
You already did a good work. The point is not necessarily "more knowledgable" people, but rather "other knowledgeable" people. Look, I never read any books on islamism, so you probably know more than I on some points. But did your father ever received a letter from one asking for your hand when you were 15 ? :-)
Anyway, I suppose it's time to retreat into the camp of people who have been bitten by 24/142/Entmoots and just have to learn to live with it.
Saurabh
Live with it, yes. Retreat, perhaps not :-) Dunno.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Well, p'raps you're right. Anyhow, the day is too long in the end, and the opportunities for fights too many... I'm done with this one. I'm going to have a wonderful evening now, and I hope you will as well.
Saurabh
------ "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women... It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become Lesbians." - Pat Robertson
In message 20030919175747.19733.qmail@web41702.mail.yahoo.com, Anthere said:
From: rednblack@alum.mit.edu Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
First of all, my opinions and RK's are wildly divergent.
Though they converge as for reverting :-)
As to the current Islamism article, it was a replacement of RK's previous version, which stevert was fighting with him over. I don't think steve has stepped in since then much, maybe because he finds
the >current version more satisfactory, or maybe because he >grew bored with the article.
This is him to say.
My objection to 142 is not over content, but rather this:
142 decided that "Islamism" was not a neutral term. I don't know why he decided this, because he never bothered to respond to my queries on that point. Thereafter he hacked up the Islamism article and
moved >chunks of text around unilaterally. My debate with him >over "militant Islam" notwithstanding, this is hardly >acceptable practice.
Oh Graft, I must respectfully say that it is quite often done a practice, though it is here done in a bolder way that done usually. Everyone, one day or another, is bold to the point of what can be perceived as rudeness. Just today, I did some moving around on the french wikipedia, on this summer heat wave article, that was felt as too bold by one of the author. Us being in good relationship, he gently told me I disturbed him.
You also were very bold with me once. I spent many hours writing a - imho - well researched, informative and attributed article. But I did not write everything that was to say on the topic ("always leave something obvious to add..."). You then explained to me on the talk page that while the article was obviously lacking some aspects, I should also *drastically* reduce what I wrote.
You also added "I agree the trading issues might be very important for you europeans, and maybe even for us americans, but they are not, by far, the only important factor surrounding GM food."
As you say, the trading issues are very important to us Europeans; I would even dare say essential. Kat confirmed it was very important in saying "The trade aspect is a major source of frustration for U.S. farmers who see export markets close to them whether the individual farmer should choose to grow GMO grain or not. A discussion of GM food would be incomplete without it."
The fact it was only one factor, and apparently not very important, was only an opinion of *you*. And the fact some of the other factors were missing was not an argument to remove half of my article, but rather for someone to complete the parts missing.
If I did it very in-depth, it was because I am aware of the depth of lack of understanding american people have over why europeans had a moratorium. This - imho
- required precisions.
But anyway, in short, we were two people supporting keeping the article as such. You were alone stating it should not, and saying I should drastically cut in what I wrote for it was not being very important.
The next thing I knew, you had amputated the article, and moved the whole part that did not suit you, with no consideration of my own position, with no acknowledgment of who had written the whole bit, and with no fixing both articles properly to introduce the notions covered in the other article.
basically, this is called a consensual agreement with the 33% winning the case. This is also "moving chunks of text around unilaterally."
Notice, I don't hold bad feelings toward you for having done that, though I was unhappy of that, but again, respectfully, I must insist that boldness happens, and does not necessarily lead to an edit war or asking protection.
Understand that my dispute with 142 is not an ideological one. My dispute is over the style in which 142 operates. He took an existing article, rewrote it willy-nilly with little justification, got in two edit wars over it (with myself and RK, who have little ideological common ground), then listed us both on [[Wikipedia:Problem users]] and went ahead with other reorganizations and article-creations without any discussion.
It is very unfortunate you got in an edit war with hir. I would not hold getting in an edit war with RK as being very...err...well...never mind.
As for being listed on problem users, I would not mind that too much if I were you. People who know you are confident you are ok. I hope it did not spoil your best day too much :-)
Thought : Aoineko and I often list each other on problematic users on the fr :-)
I am unclear exactly in what ways the current "Islamism" article is not neutral, and I am uncertain how it could incorporate such inchoate notions as "why?" people become radicals of any stripe. I think the article does attempt to give SOME answer as to how people are pushed into increasingly radical
directions >(although there's no discussion
of Algeria/France right now, which is a major flaw.
But does it give these people point of view on how they perceive themselves, what they think as being said extremists ? Does it describe in which way, the so-said non extremists perceive them as extremists ?
Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it/them, so maybe you can fill in the >gaps?)
Thank you very much for your trust, but I am not currently willing to be called a vandal again :-)
I readily acknowledge that the current "Islamism" article has profound failings and needs a lot of work; I also acknowledge that I am not an expert on Islamism, just a guy who has read a few books on the subject. I have no problem with more knowledgable people improving the article.
You already did a good work. The point is not necessarily "more knowledgable" people, but rather "other knowledgeable" people. Look, I never read any books on islamism, so you probably know more than I on some points. But did your father ever received a letter from one asking for your hand when you were 15 ? :-)
Anyway, I suppose it's time to retreat into the camp of people who have been bitten by 24/142/Entmoots and just have to learn to live with it.
Saurabh
Live with it, yes. Retreat, perhaps not :-) Dunno.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l