Content deleted Content added
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 475:
* [[User:Epistemologist]] → [[User Talk:Epistemologist|Talk]] → [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Epistemologist Contributions]
* [[User:Nathan Ladd]] on [[Talk:Truth]], Revision as of 00:33, 5 June 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=56916092 sic]:
<blockquote>
[Context] JA: IMWBO (in my worker-bee opinion), Nathan Ladd's conduct in his recent sorties of drive-by shoutings is just plain vandalism, and should be reverted until he learns to respect the admittedly hard-won '''consensus''' process that had until lately resulted in a steadily improving article. The constant "I read a book (Kirkham 1992) on truth once" attitude, on top of the overall ''ignoratio'' with regard to the most basic elements of the subject matter and the general campaign of disinformation, has turned the article into a mass of sophomoric confusions that is no longer of any service to the unsuspecting reader. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
<p>
[Response] I wish I could say I'm surprised that you resort entirely to name-calling and have not once given a rational argument to justify disagreement with any of my edits. Those who have done that in the years I've been on wiki will tell you I'm often convinced by rational argument. But I'm never intimidated by bullies, which is what you are. You're going to have to include me in your '''"concensus"''' like it or not. --[[User:Nathan Ladd|Nate Ladd]] 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
</blockquote>
* [[User:Nathan Ladd]] on [[Talk:Truth]], Revision as of 19:28, 5 June 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=57044543 sic]
<blockquote>
'''Concensus changes'''<p>
I think there's a misunderstanding by some editors of this page about the role of '''concensus'''. Prior to the recent activity of Kenosis and Jon Awbrey, the article had changed little in a long time. That's because it embodied a '''concensus''' of those who were watching it. JA and K were right to make changes where they thought they could improve on it. It would have been wrong for anyone to stop them on the grounds that they were changing something that had consensus agreement (even though that is exactly what they were doing). By the same token, no one now can reject a change merely on the grounds that it changes a preceding '''concensus'''. Particular reasons have to be given for and against each change in terms of what's good for the article. It is a hallmark of Wiki that no decision is ever final. '''Concensus''' isn't something that is reached once on wiki and then left unchanged. '''Concensus''' has to be re-reached on an almmost daily basis as new editors become active and old ones move away. --[[User:Nathan Ladd|Nate Ladd]] 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
</blockquote>
JA: More hints later, for those who haven't a clue yet. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please request administrative review of the IP addresses involved? Collaboration is one thing, conspiracy is (arguably) another, fraud is yet another. Let's get this straight rather than beating around the bush, OK? ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
| |||