EyesWhyde

Hello. Are you still active? I don't see anything on these pages.

I have added a note to the end of the talk page of the RCP article [[1]] that is critical of your Aug 12 edit on two main grounds: 1) not stating any specifics (other than "outdated") before deleting most of previous article content; 2) the new content strikes me as not adhering to NPOV.

To be honest, I should acknowledge that I found your rewrite upsetting (although I haven't contributed to that page before). I have, however, sought to avoid inflammatory language in my remarks, and I apologize if any unseemliness of tone has slipped through my self-editing. I did change the heading to reflect my concern. I hope that we can have a civil discussion of this matter. I can see that you put a great deal of work into your edit and would appreciate a chance to better understand your reasoning.

Praghmatic (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

With apologies, I am treating this matter as urgent. From my perspective, a rather detailed history of an active and controversial political organization — the June 2014 page, significant portions at least of which had been relatively stable for years — was largely replaced by a far more detailed, dramatically different treatise that seemed to be written largely from that organization's own perspective. That doesn't seem acceptable for an encyclopedia. And the matter becomes urgent when it concerns an organization actively involved in contemporary politics. As I indicate on the article's talk page, I believe your Aug 12 edit has real value as a document, and contains a number of elements which likely can be incorporated within the existing article — over time and with appropriate discussion.

Best Regards,

Praghmatic (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I was disappointed that you chose to restore the entirety of your favored text, still discarding the vast majority of the prior article, rather than to work with other editors to incorporate your insights. I don't want to get into a pointless editing war, so have flagged the issue on the NPOV board here [[2]]

Praghmatic (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:EW

Establishes rules under which an editor may be blocked or banned for edit war. It does not require a breaking of WP:3RR and I suggest you are engaging in edit war under the policy. There is an RfC open on the article talk page on which you should state the case for accepting your edit as WP:Consensus, and until then I heartily suggest you self-revert your last edit at Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please note the consensus is not to change to the article version you have created, please see [3] before continuing to edit the page Amortias (T)(C) 21:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to make major changes without discussion or sources, as you did at Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, you may be blocked from editing. You are engaged in an edit war. Please cease and attempt to gain consensus for your edit at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please take the time to understand how wikipedia consensus works. Massive changes are unlikely to achieve success. Incremental efforts are usually the best way to achieve consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeairn (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering and such

Greetings, EyesWhyde!

I did in fact comment a second time on the article which the RFC 'bot called me to comment upon, once again offering my reasons on why the proposed information should be included. I do not believe that the fact that the information is single-sourced should be a fatal flaw, after all Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles which are single-sourced since that's the nature of the Internet.

What concerns me is that editors may be using the "rules" to exclude information they are politically ideologically opposed to even though their opposition may be mild. I always feel that more information is better than less information provided the information is accurate, can be tested, has the potential to be falsified, and is legitimate. However many editors do not agree and believe that Wikipedia guidelines are hard-set in stone.

Another thing that concerns me is that you will find that the majority of editors will decide that your proposed update should be rejected, and I believe you will have to resign yourself to that fact. What concerns me is that you'll consider that a failure and stop volunteering your time editing on Wikipedia -- that would be a shame, we need passionate and dedicated editors to donate their time, and I don't want to see you get discouraged by a general decision by other editors to exclude your proposed updates.

There are many other pages that need work. Damotclese (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)