Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2003/08 (New Imperialism)
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, for the period August 2003 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- Jtdirl has protected New Imperialism, as part of an "edit war" in which he was part. This is an abuse of his sysop powers. 172 has also previously protected this page (and the talk page) unilaterally. Pizza Puzzle
- I request that New Imperialism be protected so that New Imperialism (temp) is not censored. I went to the page, as I saw it on Recent Changes, and modified a few links -- 172 then protected the entire page. There was a discussion at Talk:New Imperialism about editing New Imperialism -- 172 deleted the discussion and protected the page. 172 then told me I could go "play" at New Imperialism (temp) and that I could not make any edits to his page. After I went to all the trouble of creating an edited version of New Imperialism, 172 now refuses to allow a link to that page. He is backed by his buddy Jtdirl. Pizza Puzzle
- I have temporarily protected the page to ask other users for an adjudication. I am not a participant in the editing of the text in any way and I have made it clear that I respect both 172's and PP's efforts. The question is simple:
Should a temp page that is not a communally edited text but a rival to the main article be advertised as a rival on the main page? If we were saying that everyone was re-writing the temp and the main page was going to be replaced by the rewrite such a mention might be warranted. In this case, it is in effect two rival articles. I question in the circumstances whether it is correct to advertise both rivals on the one page. I have asked PP to desist for a while while this was explored. He has refused and continually reinserted the link to his draft. Pending a resolution of this problem, which I expect will be shift, I protected the page to allow a decision to be made. The issue is not the rival merits of both articles; that is a different article. The issue is simply how to deal with the existence of two rival articles and should the temp be put on the main page as a link?
In the meantime I also redesigned the top of the talk page to increase the visibility of the link to PP's temp page. FearÉIREANN 14:15 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- JTdirl is most definitely involved in the edit war at New Imperialism. Pizza Puzzle
- I am bending over backwards to get along with 172, not even editing his precious New Imperialism -- instead working on a seperate article. And then he goes and does this at New Imperialism (temp) http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Imperialism_(temp)&diff=1200557&oldid=1200538 -- its behavior totally inappropriate for a sysop. Pizza Puzzle
- You expressed a POV. He expressed a different one. What is the problem? If you don't want someone to express a different POV to yourself, then don't express one and let the text stand or fall on other people's analysis. Don't try to tell them what to think, which is what you tried to do and he reacted to it. FearÉIREANN 04:12 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I did not express a POV. My version of the article is shorter and more concise - its a fact. 172 entered deragatory comments about my version of the article, on the article page itself, because he wanted to vandalize it. His actions were no different than if I went to Fusion and wrote "this article is garbage" at the top. Pizza Puzzle
- shorter does not mean more concise. It could also mean inadequate. (Before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying it is or isn't.) You put in a POV heading. You can hardly take offence if another user disagrees with that analysis and challenges it. Leave any POV claims off, let the reader decide for themselves, and everyone will be happy. FearÉIREANN 04:38 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- "This is the over-simplified and reductionistic version of New Imperialism." was not a constructive attempt to improve New Imperialism (temp). You friend was vandalising the article. Pizza Puzzle
- I am trying to be helpful PP. I have defended you in the past when calls were made by Eloquence for your banning. I have said that I don't care who your identity is once you act constructively and I have offered you advice (which you perversely took as an attack though it was meant as constructive advice). You are clearly a well read intelligent contributor. 172 is one of best historians on wiki, whom I admire for his intellectual thoroughness and desire for high quality academic excellence, even though I have disagreed with him in the past on some topics (eg. Robert Mugabe). All I am urging you to do is to avoid adding a POV at the top of your text. You cannot complain if, having expressed on POV, someone expresses another. There is no need to add in any POV banner. It is simply provocative. FearÉIREANN 04:56 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Fine, this was a bad idea. But if you can insert your POV and call your version "concise," I decided that I'd insert my POV about the article to prove a point. I know that you feed of stirring up trouble and provoking emotional reactions. So I'll take some advice and quit letting you provoke me. 172 04:47 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- "This is the over-simplified and reductionistic version of New Imperialism." was not a constructive attempt to improve New Imperialism (temp). You friend was vandalising the article. Pizza Puzzle
- shorter does not mean more concise. It could also mean inadequate. (Before you jump down my throat, I'm not saying it is or isn't.) You put in a POV heading. You can hardly take offence if another user disagrees with that analysis and challenges it. Leave any POV claims off, let the reader decide for themselves, and everyone will be happy. FearÉIREANN 04:38 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I did not express a POV. My version of the article is shorter and more concise - its a fact. 172 entered deragatory comments about my version of the article, on the article page itself, because he wanted to vandalize it. His actions were no different than if I went to Fusion and wrote "this article is garbage" at the top. Pizza Puzzle
- You expressed a POV. He expressed a different one. What is the problem? If you don't want someone to express a different POV to yourself, then don't express one and let the text stand or fall on other people's analysis. Don't try to tell them what to think, which is what you tried to do and he reacted to it. FearÉIREANN 04:12 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- 172 is removing the temp links from New Imperialism despite the vote he called for having been in favor of the links. This issue has gone on for some time, and I request that the page be protected from 172. Pizza Puzzle
- As you well know PP so stop lying about it, the temps were based on the perceived need to substantially rewrite the page to reduce its size from 50K. The page has been rewritten and redesigned. Those who supported the link for one week (many with reluctance) have now changed their votes and said due to the different content now on the article page the temps are not needed. In addition it was decided originally to have one temp for one week. This was turned into two, contrary to what was agreed. Nor is it just 172 who was removing the links. Mav, who was not a combatant in the debate, also reverted your insertion of two links, pointing out that they were no longer needed. Your continuous dishonest representation of what is happening on that page is getting tedious. FearÉIREANN 20:00, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Previous