[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l sigh, 142.177

[Anthere]

> From: rednblack at alum.mit.edu
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177
> To: wikien-l at 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