Content deleted Content added
|
Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)
→Re: Kitten: new section
|
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)
→Re: Kitten: replies
|
||
|
Line 48:
I've made no secret of the fact that despite coming to this subject area with ''zero'' prior knowledge, I've since come to the opinion that much of the Austrian/LvMI stuff here on WP amounts to a very insular (though large) [[WP:WALLED|walled garden]] (an essay I'm pleased you discovered). I will continue to push for that wall to be broken down. I also believe that many of the related articles (written several years ago) are/were incredibly complimentary, sickeningly so in some cases. That doesn't mean we need to go in the ''opposite'' direction but in many cases, balance is sorely needed. That's not a matter of "attacking" BLPs but I'll admit it can often seem that way to see an article transition from gushingly positive to [[WP:NPOV|neutral]]. Anyway, I wanted to leave you a note with a couple of thoughts and left you an essay instead, but I hope you can see it comes from a good place. And thanks again for the cat. Cheers, [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
:The talk page ban is for 3 people who kept coming here leaving me nitpicking (1) or hounding messages (2). I think the ANI vs. Specifico for leaving me so many questionable notices in a few days (after I left him a notice that following me to 4 different pages he hadn't edited before and reverting or commenting on me, all in less than thirty hours, was wikihounding) was justified and was going well til he finally showed up and made a bunch of accusations with little or no diffs at all. You can see how discouraging that might be.
:You are right I did misread as I replied to you. However, as I said, it did not change the impression given my one huge diff and many other statements that Steeletrap was getting his masters in economics and thus considered self an expert whose views had greater weight.
:First, walled garden is an essay. And the lead seems to be more concerned about "This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic." So 14 articles on aspects of Austrian economics that should be merged into 2 or 3 articles would be a walled garden.
: However, WP:RS is the policy and walled garden can't be used to exclude credible WP:RS economists and authors as WP:RS just because they knew or admired an individual or held a certain view). (Steeletrap [[Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Two_.22Austrian_economist.22_sources_personally_connected_to_Rothbard|got shot down]] when he tried to assert this one on Murray Rothbard.]
:But I'm all for a variety of sources myself. And editors have been lazy. Why search deep into bowels of books google when there's so much from reliable sources on Mises and Cato and LewRockwell.com? But properly searching books.google does bring up a lot of material. But someone has got to do the work. The critics don't want to unless it's adding stuff saying or inferring they were incompetent or a bigot. Very problematic on BLPS and Bios of dead people as well.
:I've never complained about tagging or immediately removing primary source material if it's just redundant/irrelevant/etc. The problem is removing properly source neutral or positive material ''even from totally neutral/academic/non-affiliated WP:RS'' that makes the person look credible, while adding negative material from less credible sources. With coming up with insulting section headers like "Hoppe advocates using violence against gays" which was a totally WP:OR interpretation of two sources which ended up at ANI because steeletrap was pissed I pointed out this was a libelous statement. Ridiculous.
: And it goes on, and on until editors get disgusted and leave. If ten editors came to a page, opined something they were doing was totally against policy, and moved on, within 36 hours all the same material would be back in. The fact that I have bothered to complain about it on various policy boards (and sometimes SRich when even he can't take it any more) is the reason I get hounded. I did go away like a good girl for a few weeks because I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit. A couple other editors have come to talk page and said that as result of the ANI.
:The newest thing is claiming that 3rr is irrelevant and Steeletrap can revert back to his biased section headers because it's under "discussion"?? It's absurd. [[Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#Edit_war]] I again quit the article but I'm going to have to go to Talk:3rr to see if that's some new exception or they'll be violating 3rr on every article on that basis in no time. OI!!!
:Enough. Don't want to get the blood pressure up. '''[[User:Carolmooredc]] ''' 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
|
|||