Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 2

message: I have restored content deleted by wd prior to consensus having been reasched on the deletions. 
Please do not delete anything unless and until consensus is reached.  WP policy stipulates that the burden of proof (of the need to delete content, etc.) rests on the person who seeks changes.  
I do not know of reliable source that maintains that internally inconsistent arguements are logically valid.  If wd or someone else locates such a source, I'll be happy to have it included as a minority view.  I also do not see any warrant for excluding the mention of journals that have issued a call for papers and are actively reviewing manuscripts for publication in the premiere issue. 
justice-thunders-condemnation 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of content

message: Watchdog07 has placed a "hoax" warning tag next to a reference to a journal.  The website of the journal follows the reference, in order to comply with the reliable source policy. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no justification for a hoax tag. It is up to the person who places such a tag to explain why they have done so. In the absence of an explanation, I am removing the tag. Sunray 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: # I agree to follow the rules put forth in the talk page header and mentioned by sunray above. MrMacMan Talk  17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign-on

message: Unfortunately, no one else took the initiative by reverting Andrew kliman's malicious objectionable edit which didn't come even remotely near neutrality or the standards expected in an encyclopedia. Hence I did what i would say I would do on this page.  
Please do not re-insert Kliman's shit into the article again.  It was in clear violation of WP:BLP  and was frankly just ridiculous, vindictive, and petty. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agreed that we would decide on content by consensus. Therefore I will restore the article to it the state it was in prior to establishment of the groundrules. Sunray 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:AGF, which explicitly mentions malice. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not "suppress" the writing by [Alan Freeman(Personal attack removed)]. Indeed, I just looked over the page history and didn't find any such edit by myself.  Andrew Kliman can show us the proof or apologize.  If I inadvertantly edited out [Alan Freeman's(Personal attack removed)]comments, then I apologize - but I have seen no evidence that happened. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff I provided above is the proof.  I didn't say that a person suppressed Alan's comment.  I said, above, that the comment was suppressed and, in the edit summary, that Watchdog07's edit suppressed Alan's comment. andrew-the-k 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored the article to the previous version. Sunray 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are no "ground rules" for the discussion which have been agreed to by all of the editors. Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was not an act of someone demonstrating good faith, Sunray.  I dare you to read Kliman's edit from the other day and defend it.  If you think that's an edit suitable for an encyclopedia, then I question  your judgement - big time! There is really nothing here to debate - Kliman's outrageous and offensive edit is clearly in violation of WP:BLP and so lacking in neutrality (and  common sense) that it is mind-boggling. Now, I will revert the article.  Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given your most recent action - done without first discussing it on this page -- I  reject your self-proposed role as facilitator.  NB: there was never agreement by all of the editors to either you being the facilitator or to your "ground rules".  Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Sunray suppressed - removed without permission - my comments about XAX.  Don't EVER  do that again! 
That borders on bad faith as I have explained why a certain term - a technical term of Wikipedia - is legitimate to use in reference to another editor.  Please note that a member of sysops [J.smith]found that person guilty of that offense, citing [[WP:SOCK] and WP:MEAT.  This was all explained earlier and Sunray does not have the right to be the censor of this page.  I would appreciate an apology. Watchdog07 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, we are dealing with this article only. Secondly, Wikipedia administrators do not have any authority to "find people guilty" or make any other rulings that that are in any way binding beyond the particular situation that they are dealing with. The term meatpuppet is derogatory. I have asked you not to use it. I repeat: Pleaese do not use that term (or any other derogatory term) when you refer to someone on this talk page. To do so is contrary to Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. I trust this is clear. Let's move on. Sunray 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression on the Talk Page