In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Rick Norwood is consistently adding POV to the Conservatism article even after being given appropriate warnings and evidence to stop his activity.
Rick Norwood is filling the Conservatism article with his own POV, adding entirely new sections, which, while referenced, are nothing more than a point-of-view soapbox to promote his views. He has openly stated an agenda and has ignored all requests to cease his activity.
He has stated:
Beneaththelandslide's talk page:
"I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new."
"Historically, conservatives have supported the existing class structure against egalitarianism, the existing religion against other religions and atheism, patriotism against internationalism, and conformity against non-conformity, and so the poor, religious minorities, internationalists, and non-conformists have often spoken out against conservatism."
"Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history."
michael talk 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
What Michael describes as constantly adding a section I would describe as him constantly deleting a section. I have tried to discuss this with him, as the quotes he posts above show. I have tried my best to work with Michael. I reword the disputed section, trying to work toward more neutral wording. He deletes. I leave out parts in an attempt a compromise. He deletes. I add footnotes and, if one footnote is weak, I provide a stronger footnote. He deletes. I try to discuss the subject with him. He repeats that I'm POV and OR and deletes.
I think Michael is sincere in his beliefs, but I think he needs to read more on the history of conservativism.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
I agree. Rick has just reverted wholesale my contributions to the Philosophy page, including two factual corrections - historically Western philososophy is NOT completely seperate from religion and Eastern philosophy DID influence Pythagoras. He added a foolsih and poorly written version of his own instead. He indicated he did not understand the nature of academic research, by rejecting 'books' as sources.
It seems there that he has made many time-wasting edits to the page and the talk pages, and diverted a lot of editors' energy in the past to little effect. He indicated limited awareness of the evident gaps in his expertise... Docmartincohen ( talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Rick Norwood is consistently adding POV to the Conservatism article even after being given appropriate warnings and evidence to stop his activity.
Rick Norwood is filling the Conservatism article with his own POV, adding entirely new sections, which, while referenced, are nothing more than a point-of-view soapbox to promote his views. He has openly stated an agenda and has ignored all requests to cease his activity.
He has stated:
Beneaththelandslide's talk page:
"I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new."
"Historically, conservatives have supported the existing class structure against egalitarianism, the existing religion against other religions and atheism, patriotism against internationalism, and conformity against non-conformity, and so the poor, religious minorities, internationalists, and non-conformists have often spoken out against conservatism."
"Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history."
michael talk 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
What Michael describes as constantly adding a section I would describe as him constantly deleting a section. I have tried to discuss this with him, as the quotes he posts above show. I have tried my best to work with Michael. I reword the disputed section, trying to work toward more neutral wording. He deletes. I leave out parts in an attempt a compromise. He deletes. I add footnotes and, if one footnote is weak, I provide a stronger footnote. He deletes. I try to discuss the subject with him. He repeats that I'm POV and OR and deletes.
I think Michael is sincere in his beliefs, but I think he needs to read more on the history of conservativism.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
I agree. Rick has just reverted wholesale my contributions to the Philosophy page, including two factual corrections - historically Western philososophy is NOT completely seperate from religion and Eastern philosophy DID influence Pythagoras. He added a foolsih and poorly written version of his own instead. He indicated he did not understand the nature of academic research, by rejecting 'books' as sources.
It seems there that he has made many time-wasting edits to the page and the talk pages, and diverted a lot of editors' energy in the past to little effect. He indicated limited awareness of the evident gaps in his expertise... Docmartincohen ( talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.