Communicat (talk | contribs) →Pre-filing comments: tweak |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:Moreover, I see that my signature was deleted from a comment above regarding corruption of process, and a fairly incoherent unsigned comment was added below it. The latter was evidently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCommunicat&action=historysubmit&diff=395636124&oldid=395551062posted done by Edward321]. I repeat, I don't have time for this. It is disruptive and counter-productive. Nor does it auger well for any possible resolution of the matters at hand, which I am prepared to have resolved by the rules, or not at all. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Moreover, I see that my signature was deleted from a comment above regarding corruption of process, and a fairly incoherent unsigned comment was added below it. The latter was evidently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCommunicat&action=historysubmit&diff=395636124&oldid=395551062posted done by Edward321]. I repeat, I don't have time for this. It is disruptive and counter-productive. Nor does it auger well for any possible resolution of the matters at hand, which I am prepared to have resolved by the rules, or not at all. [[User:Communicat|Communicat]] ([[User talk:Communicat|talk]]) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::That diff purporting to be from Edward321 is clearly one of your own edits which shows no such thing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Communicat&action=historysubmit&diff=395551062&oldid=395505854 This] is the diff for the only post Edward321 has made here, and it didn't change anything you posted (though he does appear to have not signed - something we all forget to do from time to time). The reason your name didn't appear at the end of your comment is because you didn't include it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Communicat&diff=next&oldid=395419496]. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:25, 10 November 2010
Pre-filing comments
Please leave any comments about the RFC during its creation phase here below, in this section. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I commend the author for his formatting of this RfC form, which I support. Communicat (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been waiting for George to correct the details of this RfC and complete it as he said he'd do. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Communicat comment
I disagree with GWH's proposed words to the effect that I believe "there exists a cabal of editors working to keep the standard western history viewpoint exclusively in the articles to the exclusion of other viewpoints; advanced by Communicat"
What I am saying in essence is that there exists POV bias through ommission of contrary reliable positions based on established lines of research. The alleged POV bias manifests itself also in disruption of my edits by Nick-d and by Edward321, together with persistent harrassment by the latter. Communicat (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is regretable that some discussion of this proposed Rfc is evidently taking place at certain user talk pages, and not here, which IMO is the proper place for open and transparent discussion of this matter. 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please link to the the talk page where this is happening? Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Communciat has done it here [1] and here.[2] In the latter case he is clearly [aspersions] against me and possibly violating WP:NLT.
- I can't make sense of this. Nick-d clearly initiated talk by posting direct to GWH's talk page and not to this page. It's not important, forget I even mentioned it. Communicat (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Further Communicat comment: I disagree with proposed words: Broadly speaking, Communicat has introduced a more eastern-oriented point of view and sources. No, I've only introduced previously absented reliable sources, both Western and non-Western. I don't discriminate.
I've pointed out at ww2 talk page and elsewhere that of nearly 400 individual references supporting ww2 article, there is not one non-Western source or significant minority source listed. I suggested months ago that something ought to be done collegially to address this obvious disparity of sources. Nothing was done, neither collegially nor otherwise. The disparity remains, and I'm not entertaining any thought of trying to fix the POV bias on my own, in the face of such strident resistance. Communicat (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree also with Nick-d's request to GBH's talk page at 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC), claiming that "the main article in question is the World War II article, not the Aftermath of World War II article (which Communicat has only started working on in the last few days ... As such, could you please change this to World War II so it accuratly captures where the disagreements have been occuring?" The disagreements that have been occuring commenced at Western betrayal article nine months ago, reaching a peak during editing and revision of the section "Aftermath of WW2" in WW2 main article. As for the Aftermath of WW2 main and separate article, I've been working on it for a few weeks, not "a few days". Disagreements surfaced there right at the outset, when Edward321 started reverting my edits without justification, which sparked the recent Arbcom application. Edward321 has not recommenced his reversions and disruptions. Problem solved.
Quite frankly, I don't have time for this. Communicat (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Moreover, I see that my signature was deleted from a comment above regarding corruption of process, and a fairly incoherent unsigned comment was added below it. The latter was evidently done by Edward321. I repeat, I don't have time for this. It is disruptive and counter-productive. Nor does it auger well for any possible resolution of the matters at hand, which I am prepared to have resolved by the rules, or not at all. Communicat (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- That diff purporting to be from Edward321 is clearly one of your own edits which shows no such thing. This is the diff for the only post Edward321 has made here, and it didn't change anything you posted (though he does appear to have not signed - something we all forget to do from time to time). The reason your name didn't appear at the end of your comment is because you didn't include it: [3]. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)