This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aryan race article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 92 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Beyond My Ken: Per WP:BADREVERT and WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per WP:3RR rule. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time- You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy. If you have read WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.So BRD does not bind here. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
discuss firstor
no consensusis not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:
All of the above diffs were mass reverted by
Beyond My Ken in
this diff and further by
Czello in this
this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited
WP:BRD.
Beyond My Ken stated in their edit summary (
diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in
WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to
further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are
WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit,
gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.
Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" states that avoid reverting with edit summary saying only discuss first
.
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling states that Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)
Since the other involved editors cited
WP:BRD, this is what
WP:BRD-NOT states (3) BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. (2) BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page
. This also goes against
WP:BADREVERT.
I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.
I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to dispute resolution is the way to move forward.
I vote to restore my last revision in lieu of current revision for the reasons stated.
Thank you, -- WikiLinuz { talk} 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Should this version of the proposed changes be adopted into the article in lieu of this current version? -- WikiLinuz { talk} 04:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@
SMcCandlish: I'm confused by what you mean the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed
. The current version of the articles does not mention the term Volksgemeinschaft at all (you can Ctrl + F and search for "Volksgemeinschaft"). That was added by me in one of those 12 diffs that I am proposing to be adopted into the current article. Mind to elaborate? --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry, this is an easily verifiable historical fact and I do not understand how WikiLinuz can delete my contributions. Midofe1996 ( talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry- No, is was not. Read the cited sources. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aryan race article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 92 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Beyond My Ken: Per WP:BADREVERT and WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per WP:3RR rule. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time- You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy. If you have read WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.So BRD does not bind here. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
discuss firstor
no consensusis not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. -- WikiLinuz { talk} 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:
All of the above diffs were mass reverted by
Beyond My Ken in
this diff and further by
Czello in this
this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited
WP:BRD.
Beyond My Ken stated in their edit summary (
diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in
WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to
further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are
WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit,
gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.
Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" states that avoid reverting with edit summary saying only discuss first
.
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling states that Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)
Since the other involved editors cited
WP:BRD, this is what
WP:BRD-NOT states (3) BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. (2) BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page
. This also goes against
WP:BADREVERT.
I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.
I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to dispute resolution is the way to move forward.
I vote to restore my last revision in lieu of current revision for the reasons stated.
Thank you, -- WikiLinuz { talk} 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Should this version of the proposed changes be adopted into the article in lieu of this current version? -- WikiLinuz { talk} 04:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@
SMcCandlish: I'm confused by what you mean the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed
. The current version of the articles does not mention the term Volksgemeinschaft at all (you can Ctrl + F and search for "Volksgemeinschaft"). That was added by me in one of those 12 diffs that I am proposing to be adopted into the current article. Mind to elaborate? --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry, this is an easily verifiable historical fact and I do not understand how WikiLinuz can delete my contributions. Midofe1996 ( talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry- No, is was not. Read the cited sources. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)