Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 4

message: :I find the above text (and, indeed the whole section) hard to wade through. It doesn't seem to be written for the general reader. I wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Certainly it needs editing.
:OK, I had to get that off my chest. We could move the text here and re-write it, however, perhaps we could take a look at the neutrality question first.  Sunray 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General comment on readability

message: Watchdog: I think that you have seriously misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. In your "welcome" to Extra Fine Point, above, you missed this, all important, message: Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." No one is excluded from editing or participating in discussions on talk pages unless they violate the law or Wikipedia policies. 
I have not responded to your question about my knowledge of Marxian economics because it is not relevant to what I have signed on to do. 
As to your other statements about who is a "legitimate party" to this discussion, sadly (for you) you do not determine who is included. All of us who have a valid user account and abide by Wikipedia policies are equal here. As stated in Who writes Wikipedia: "Unlike other encyclopedias, the volunteer authors of Wikipedia articles don't have to be experts or scholars... "  
Please stop making allegations about other users and decide whether you are going to participate in our discussions according to the guidelines at the top of this page and the policy on consensus. Sunray 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "unless they violate ... Wikipedia policies". Watchdog07 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What did you "sign on" to do?  Let us recall that whatever you may have originally wanted to do, you are most certainly not a "facilitator" for this dispute. Watchdog07 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:AGF.  That official policy makes it clear that where there is evidence to the contrary, we are not required to continue to assume good faith on the part of certain  editors. Watchdog07 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that it's easier to read and follow the discussion in the style you prefer.  If I follow your request then what it will really mean is that I won't respond to all your points or questions since it would take considerably more time to repeat and then answer each question in a separate section.  This would mean that I would answer some and ignore other comments and questions.  That wouldn't help the discussion, imo.  For instance, if you had used the style I had used then perhaps you wouldn't have been so non-responsive to so many of the questions I have asked of you. Watchdog07 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Watchdog07|Watchdog07]] please take note

message: Watchdog's responses were interleaved between my own post. I have refactored these by moving them all together below my comment. 
 
Request: Watchdog, would you please not interleave your responses to my posts (i.e., reply to each sentence in the middle of a paragraph). It makes it hard for other readers to follow. It is better, IMO, to respond in your own paragraph below what another user has said. Sunray 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that it's easier to read and follow the discussion in the style you prefer.  If I follow your request then what it will really mean is that I won't respond to all your points or questions since it would take considerably more time to repeat and then answer each question in a separate section.  This would mean that I would answer some and ignore other comments and questions.  That wouldn't help the discussion, imo.  For instance, if you had used the style I had used then perhaps you wouldn't have been so non-responsive to so many of the questions I have asked of you. Watchdog07 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring Watchdog's response

message: Sunray -- you have no right to censor this talk page. If you wish to add comments, then go ahead.  Do not delete them.
I restored the comments which were censored.  If you wish to restore your own comments on "civility" etc., go right ahead, but do so in the proper order.  I would have restored your comments myself, but your censorship of the page made that more difficult technically. Watchdog07 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility and Censorship 

message: There have been a number of accusations, slurs, inuendos, and ad hominem remarks verging on personal attacks on this page.  None of this is what article talk pages are intended for.  As the guideline for talk pages states: 
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
I have removed the two most recent lapses in civility. From here on out, I will archive discussion that is not about the article itself and will revert accusations and attacks. Please observe the groundrules set out above. If you feel you cannot do that, by all means, go somewhere else. 
Let us now move on with the discussion. Sunray 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored. comments deleted by Watchdog07. Sunray 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sickened by what Sunray euphemistically calls the "recent lapses in civility."  I am terribly sorry that s/he has had to endure such abuse.  I agree that these "lapses in civility" should be removed, that accusations and attacks be reverted, and that anyone who does not observe the groundrules should go somewhere else. andrew-the-k 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CIV|Civility]]

message: Sunray -- you have no right to censor this talk page. If you wish to add comments, then go ahead.  Do not delete them.
I restored the comments which were censored.  If you wish to restore your own comments on "civility" etc., go right ahead, but do so in the proper order.  I would have restored your comments myself, but your censorship of the page made that more difficult technically. Watchdog07 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not censorship. It is painting over graffiti. What you wrote violates Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:CIV, and. in particular, the section on Removing uncivil comments. We take this policy seriously and will apply it from here on out. Please ensure all your posts are civil from now on and DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. Sunray 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted a previous comment as I now see that the message I had sent on "Sunray and Hanlon's Razor?" is back on the talk page.  You have no right to issue commands like "DO NOT REVERT AGAIN, especially after you just reverted the article. I WILL revert the article again because you have not responded to the issues over the content of the disputed section of the article on the talk page and their urgency. Watchdog07 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to get back to issues directly related to the article. Sunray 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility and Censorship