Content deleted Content added
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) reply to question that the poster admits already knowing the answer to |
MilesMoney (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]], is there any policy-based basis for removing this? [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]], is there any policy-based basis for removing this? [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Yes. It's stated in the associated edit summary, which you've acknowledged reading and haven't disputed the accuracy of. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
:Yes. It's stated in the associated edit summary, which you've acknowledged reading and haven't disputed the accuracy of. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Your edit summary was "inappropriate category; other books in the cat deal with the subject generally, not with purported examples, and other books on the particular topic are not in this category". I did not refute it because it doesn't support your edit. Even if it were the case that the other books in the category deal with the subject generally, the category is explicitly defined as "containing books on specific groups that have been called cults, as well as books relating to or describing cult methodologies and theories". As such, this book, which discusses a particular group that's been called a cult, fits into the category. |
|||
::Now that I've pointed out your mistake, I'm sure you'll do the right thing and revert your edit. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:33, 28 December 2013
Books C‑class | |||||||
|
Objectivism C‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is there any policy-based basis for removing this? MilesMoney (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It's stated in the associated edit summary, which you've acknowledged reading and haven't disputed the accuracy of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit summary was "inappropriate category; other books in the cat deal with the subject generally, not with purported examples, and other books on the particular topic are not in this category". I did not refute it because it doesn't support your edit. Even if it were the case that the other books in the category deal with the subject generally, the category is explicitly defined as "containing books on specific groups that have been called cults, as well as books relating to or describing cult methodologies and theories". As such, this book, which discusses a particular group that's been called a cult, fits into the category.
- Now that I've pointed out your mistake, I'm sure you'll do the right thing and revert your edit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)