→Coatracking: new section |
→Coatracking: blanking a table -- too extreme reaction, needs explaining |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Editors may not use this or any other article as a [[WP:COATRACK]] to advance a position about a wholly unrelated issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not do "examples" (see [[WP:NOT]], as in "not a textbook" and "not a how-to guide). This addition is POV pushing, Coatracking, and just overall bad editing. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
Editors may not use this or any other article as a [[WP:COATRACK]] to advance a position about a wholly unrelated issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not do "examples" (see [[WP:NOT]], as in "not a textbook" and "not a how-to guide). This addition is POV pushing, Coatracking, and just overall bad editing. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:[[QED]] -- The objective value of the table is demonstrated by the diff above. |
|||
:[[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] -- No, this is not "POV pushing". If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that I understand.<p>No, this is not "coatracking". This is an apparently necessary part of an article which was previously unsourced; and it is highly relevant that this specific term is prominently featured at [[WP:Dispute resolution]]. The term appears to be one which is neither acknowledged nor valued by you -- except in terms of this non-controversial table. |
|||
<p>No, this is not overall bad editing.<p>Your user page announces that you have a MA in [[rhetoric]]. Therefore, it is not beyond your abilities to explain your editing decision in different words. This context requires something more than [[WP:Escalating alphabeticals]]. Now would be a good time to use your writing skills.<p>On the other hand, if you are unable or unwilling, this would be a good time to state it frankly and directly. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:28, 28 February 2011
Philosophy: Logic Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No U
Why does "no u" even exsist? It is a wrong spelling of a childish argument that nobody needs to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.83.132.62 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Coatracking
Editors may not use this or any other article as a WP:COATRACK to advance a position about a wholly unrelated issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not do "examples" (see WP:NOT, as in "not a textbook" and "not a how-to guide). This addition is POV pushing, Coatracking, and just overall bad editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- QED -- The objective value of the table is demonstrated by the diff above.
- Qwyrxian -- No, this is not "POV pushing". If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that I understand.
No, this is not "coatracking". This is an apparently necessary part of an article which was previously unsourced; and it is highly relevant that this specific term is prominently featured at WP:Dispute resolution. The term appears to be one which is neither acknowledged nor valued by you -- except in terms of this non-controversial table.
No, this is not overall bad editing.
Your user page announces that you have a MA in rhetoric. Therefore, it is not beyond your abilities to explain your editing decision in different words. This context requires something more than WP:Escalating alphabeticals. Now would be a good time to use your writing skills.
On the other hand, if you are unable or unwilling, this would be a good time to state it frankly and directly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)