User talk:Crotalus horridus/Archive/POV debates

Please retain accuracy in edit notes

In your edit here [1] you claim that "no justification was given for the removal of this link". However, when I removed the link, I cleary did provide a justification as you can see here [2]. Now, that may not be a good enough justification, but I did provide a justification. Your message would tell others to not even bother looking for the justification. And this isn't the first time you've said things that weren't entirely true. On the Capitalism talk page, you claimed that people were debating edits on their ideological merit, when in fact the entire discussion was based on Wikipedia standars and had nothing to do with the merit of the ideologies. I would appreciate if you would be more careful when making blatant assertions, since in my limited experience they have a habit of not being true. MrVoluntarist 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary made clear that the objection was based on the reported POV content of the target article. However, that is not reason for removing a relevant link - it is a reason to fix the article it points to. I have already tagged Socialism and Gold with a {{cleanup}} tag (in addition to the {{NPOV}} tag it already had) and I have made a couple of alterations to it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, anyone overviewing the Talk:Capitalism page can see that much, perhaps a majority, of the discussion has degenerated into a debate on the underlying issues. This impedes progress on the article and should be stopped. Also, my comment on that page was specifically directed at everyone, not you specifically. I know you are not the only one who has done this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. MrVoluntarist 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism (United States)

It IS messy, but it all should be redfirected in a day or two. Sorry to call it "POV warrior bashing." Thanks for dropping the page delete--ironically, it would have extended the life of the page.--Cberlet 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it, but now I need help keeping it redirected. Can I impose upon you to help?--Cberlet 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one having problems with RJII's editing style. I had a nasty debate with him yesterday on the anarchism talk page here. I can and will be happy to participate in a dispute resolution if you and others think it is needed, and I will do anything I can to facilitate this. I really want to see him cease from his current impoliteness which is driving me up the wall. The Ungovernable Force 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I asked one of the arbitrators who accepted the case, Fred Bauder, if he felt the arbitration would continue. He responded that it probably would, although he had not looked at it yet. If you have evidence to bring, you might want to post it here. I think that the case is much less likely to be dropped if there is a large amount of evidence from different users. Even if this RfAr is dropped because Firebug left Wikipedia, the evidence could be copied to any future arbitration. TomTheHand 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I think this RfAr is based on much more solid ground than that old one. RJII has stirred up a lot of trouble lately and a lot of different people have come forward with complaints. I'm continually surprised by how many different people he's upset. TomTheHand 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]