User talk:AidWorker: Difference between revisions
Herostratus (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
This would be slow movement, but there's no hurry. Our goal is to get it right eventually, not necessarily right away. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 18:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
This would be slow movement, but there's no hurry. Our goal is to get it right eventually, not necessarily right away. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 18:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
The contributor User:Lingzhi has said that he is writing to support his personal ideological agenda, that nothing that Indians did or did not do contributed to the catastophe of thefamine. He stated that he has the objective of removing anything on the page that says that they did. He has removed widely accepted, almost universally accepted evidence, that throws doubt on his agenda. He has also removed the conclusions various commentators have reached. He has introduced his own, unpublished interpretations. All his citations that I have checked prove to bear no relation to what is in his source. There is cherrypicking. All of which is generally agreed to lead to a false message. False beliefs on famine have killed millions in the past, and this could kill more. |
|||
Wikipedia guidelines are established to prevent such abuses, demanding that entries cover the different points of view and do not push the ideologies of a single editor or group of editors. It is the duty of the whole Wikipedia community to enforce this. |
|||
My comment on this submission covered only the presentation in relation to Wikipedia guidelines. It did not present a refutation of his analysis and data, because because Wikipedia says that this should not appear on the Talk page. It is therefore very mild compared to what would be said in response to a submission to academic journal or to a report prepared for FAO, the World Bank etc for submission to a government. |
|||
The previous entry set out the generally accepted facts and evidence and the range of often contradictory concludions that had been drawn from them. It carefully did not push my particular conclusions, and covered conclusions that I do not think convincing. Most of the evidence have been in the public domain since the early 1950s and all have been available since the mid 1970s, so the disagreements are mainly on the interpretations of the evidence, not the facts. |
|||
If you look at the talk page you will find the problems that have arisen with this particular contributor. He flatly refuses to discuss anything with me. He refuses to read anything that contradicts his point of view or that he fears may contradict it. He refused to read my detailed comment on his submission. I have been abused for having a theoretical stance I do not have, for having political beliefs and beliefs about the famine that I do not have, for saying things I did not say and for omitting things I did not omit. Similar ad hominem attacks on commentators who do not support his agenda occur. The talk page bears this out. How do you suggest I work with someone who flatly refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines or academic standards? |
|||
It is not possible to spend the next ten years changing User:Lingzhi’s 25,000 word submission once sentence a a time: too many people will die. |
|||
I should like to take up the suggestion that this goes to an expert panel, encompassing all views, and including people who stop famines for a living. |
|||
[[User:AidWorker|AidWorker]] ([[User talk:AidWorker#top|talk]]) 13:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:55, 4 May 2017
Fair trade
Hi,
You made some really good points over at Talk:Fair trade impact studies. It's not one of our best articles. Would you like to help fix it up? bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair Trade USA
Hi AidWorker! Could you please provide some assistance at Talk:Fair Trade USA#Issue with references regarding one of your edits? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- What is the problem with the references? They seem to conform to normal academic standards. ThanksAidWorker (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Fair Trade USA#Issue with references (instead of having it in two places). GoingBatty (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bengal famine of 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bengal famine of 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International Fairtrade Certification Mark may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Bengal Famine
I did not put up those POV tags and neither did the other recent editor. Your frustration with the quality of the page is quite reasonable, because the article is terrible, but your comments are very impolite infractions of WP:NPA. I'm rewriting the entire article from scratch in a sandbox. I expect it to take another couple of months, but perhaps a bit less. I will replace the entire article in one edit rather than bit by bit, because huge sections are missing. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Lingzhi/sandbox Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Bengal famine of 1943 redux
Hi AidWorker. Regarding this article: I rolled back your reversion to the old version, giving my reasoning on the talk page.
Whether your objections are cogent or not I don't yet know. But as a practical matter you seem to be currently greatly outnumbered, and by a coterie of erudite persons and not just a tag-team of trolls. So as a practical matter it would behoove you to make an effort to be charming and persuasive if you want to get anywhere. I did not get a charming-and-persuasive vibe from your talk page post.
Your talk page post if very long, and its hard to figure out a way forward from it. I don't think it is likely that you are going to get consensus to roll back to the old version. You could try an RfC to bring in new eyes. But it's a complex subject and I don't know if that'll get you anywhere. It might if you present the issue succinctly and clearly.
So you are going to need to work with the other editors I think, such as User:Lingzhi. My opinion is that your best way forward might be small posts offering specific suggestions. Stuff like "Here it said X caused Y, but I think we should add "but according so Professor Smith [or: 'some analysts' or whatever], Y might have been also partly caused by Z". And of course you'd have a good ref for that. That sort of thing.
This would be slow movement, but there's no hurry. Our goal is to get it right eventually, not necessarily right away. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The contributor User:Lingzhi has said that he is writing to support his personal ideological agenda, that nothing that Indians did or did not do contributed to the catastophe of thefamine. He stated that he has the objective of removing anything on the page that says that they did. He has removed widely accepted, almost universally accepted evidence, that throws doubt on his agenda. He has also removed the conclusions various commentators have reached. He has introduced his own, unpublished interpretations. All his citations that I have checked prove to bear no relation to what is in his source. There is cherrypicking. All of which is generally agreed to lead to a false message. False beliefs on famine have killed millions in the past, and this could kill more.
Wikipedia guidelines are established to prevent such abuses, demanding that entries cover the different points of view and do not push the ideologies of a single editor or group of editors. It is the duty of the whole Wikipedia community to enforce this.
My comment on this submission covered only the presentation in relation to Wikipedia guidelines. It did not present a refutation of his analysis and data, because because Wikipedia says that this should not appear on the Talk page. It is therefore very mild compared to what would be said in response to a submission to academic journal or to a report prepared for FAO, the World Bank etc for submission to a government.
The previous entry set out the generally accepted facts and evidence and the range of often contradictory concludions that had been drawn from them. It carefully did not push my particular conclusions, and covered conclusions that I do not think convincing. Most of the evidence have been in the public domain since the early 1950s and all have been available since the mid 1970s, so the disagreements are mainly on the interpretations of the evidence, not the facts.
If you look at the talk page you will find the problems that have arisen with this particular contributor. He flatly refuses to discuss anything with me. He refuses to read anything that contradicts his point of view or that he fears may contradict it. He refused to read my detailed comment on his submission. I have been abused for having a theoretical stance I do not have, for having political beliefs and beliefs about the famine that I do not have, for saying things I did not say and for omitting things I did not omit. Similar ad hominem attacks on commentators who do not support his agenda occur. The talk page bears this out. How do you suggest I work with someone who flatly refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines or academic standards?
It is not possible to spend the next ten years changing User:Lingzhi’s 25,000 word submission once sentence a a time: too many people will die.
I should like to take up the suggestion that this goes to an expert panel, encompassing all views, and including people who stop famines for a living. AidWorker (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)