→Coatracking: blanking a table -- too extreme reaction, needs explaining |
→Coatracking: evaluation not supported by explanation -- not collaborative |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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 |
:<b>[[QED]]</b> -- The objective <b>usefulness</b> and <b>necessity</b> of the table is demonstrated by the diff above. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:[[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) |
::[[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] -- No, this is <u>not "POV pushing"</u>. If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that everyone can understand.<p>No, this is <u>not "coatracking"</u>. 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 <u>not "overall bad editing"</u>. Your credibility is insufficient to support a this evaluation. More is needed in the context of [[collaborative editing]].<p>[[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] -- 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 17:34, 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 usefulness and necessity of the table is demonstrated by the diff above. --Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian -- No, this is not "POV pushing". If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that everyone can 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 credibility is insufficient to support a this evaluation. More is needed in the context of collaborative editing.
Qwyrxian -- 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)
- Qwyrxian -- No, this is not "POV pushing". If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that everyone can understand.