Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 16 June 2006

Conservatism

The criticism section is absolute rubbish and I am glad you've removed it (as I had done several times earlier). However, be ready to explain in detail why you did so - to people who quote Marx in their critique of the philosophy. michael 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for comment has been filed relating to Rick Norwood's edits. Please leave comments there. michael 09:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking to stop Norwood adding his OR and POV please add something to the request for comment. It presents a case against his actions. michael 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Mediation Case Rick has filed and offer evidence / comments. Thanks, michael 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Fiscal Conservatism(Free Market Conservatism)

Your recent edit to Fiscal Conservatism(Free Market Conservatism) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 01:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This was a speedy delete according to the speedy delete policy. ER MD 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Criticism Section

Please stop blanking this section. There is legitimate criticism of the conservative ideology, and it belongs in the article. Please work with the editors to make the section more fair and accurate instead of just removing it entirely. Thank you. I have reverted your blanking again but I will not do so a third time. If you elect to continue with the blanking, you may be subject to administrative consequences. Bjsiders 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking Discplinary Action

You really shouldn't remove that information, it makes it very difficult for the administrators to keep track of things. I think it's generally considered bad practice around here. Just an FYI, you're free, obviously, to blank whatever you wish on this page. Bjsiders 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong there, it belongs in the American Liberalism article, and as such, I'm going to revert that as well. The effort at American Conservatism is to come up with a list of legitimate criticisms that can be backed up by (1) conservative leadership articulating a policy and (2) critics offering a reasoned criticism of that policy. You're just blanking the entire section. If you don't want "BS" criticism in there, then contribute to the discussion, don't just remove it all. And if you want to put legitimate criticisms into the American Liberalism article, go do so, I watch that one too, I'll back you up on it. Legitimate criticisms, mind you, not off-the-cuff nonsense just to make a point. Bjsiders 15:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I love it how a person who complains that their POV insertion is being blanked and then turns around and blanks other people's POV. I laugh... ER MD 15:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are making an equivilence between two unequivilent additions. You are blanking legitimate criticism of a political ideology in the article about that ideology even while editors are working together to improve the fairness and accuracy of the criticism section. I am blanking content that is NOT about the political ideaology in question, but rather its opposite, and which was added by an editor with an axe to grind and a point to make. I also suggested where you COULD post that same content, and that I would give you my complete support provided the content was legitimate. Bjsiders 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't a section about american conservatism have the points to which conservative disagree and often accuse liberals of? Its logical, and your logic to argue your position is not sound. ER MD 15:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That content could be worked into the article, but the specific content you posted was designed to be ridiculous and POV because you wanted to make a point about the criticism secion that you dislike. Content that discusses criticisms of liberalism or liberal policies can certainly be worked in, but the point-by-point list you posted is completely inappropriate. Your list was about liberalism in an article that is about conservatism. Certainly, by definition, conservative ideology must discuss liberalism. Your particular addition was, I feel, inappropriate, especially given the context in which you added it. A section about criticism of conservatism should not include conservative criticism of liberalism, no. I do not see the logic in that. Bjsiders 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Think about it for a little while... Conservative have issues with liberalism so they very well could be included in the article. and yes, they were ridiculous and they are POV, just as the current section is written. Stuff like "support police powers that infringe on individual rights" is a superficial and POV interpretation of conservative policy. It doesn't add anything to the article and it does not represent the positions adequately other than establishing a straw hat argument. And for a clarification... the section was titled "criticisms"--not "criticism of conservatism" as you have written, so it is not necessarily of conservatism istself. You are thinking of the other article. Are you proposing that american conservatism have a section conservative ciriticism of liberals??? I'm sure i can find a webpage with about 500 references and examples. Is that what you want? superficial soapbox arguments? ER MD 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I said that conservative criticism of liberalism "could be worked into the article," so you needn't argue with me on that point. I also have explained many times that the purpose of the discussion on the edit page is to address the criticism section and improve it so that it's fair and accurate. You've been invited to participate, and have largely declined, except to blank out the entire section. I don't know what "other article" you're referring to. I am not suggesting that American criticism have a section critical of liberals, you added that and I removed it. Again, I've explained many times that I do not want superficial arguments, I am supporting the effort of the editing community to come up with fair and accurate criticims for the criticisms section. I'm unclear as to why you can't understand this and continue to accuse me of advocating things I am not advocating. Bjsiders 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bit o' advice.

Thanks for your contributions to the conservative/liberal/etc. articles. However, the way you are going about trying to fix them is a little iffy, and frankly mostly off-putting. Continuously blanking sections you don't agree with is even against policy. I would encourage you to try and compromise some. Try "writing for your enemy". It is nice to have your views on certain issues, but the modus operandi is what's tricky. While I, for one, appreciate having you speak your mind about these issues, please think about toning it down a bit. Catching more flies with sugar, and all that. Anyway, thanks again, and I hope you think about the best way to work within consensus while remaining civil to express your views... even if you are right. Thanks. --You Know Who 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)