User talk:Praghmatic

helpful places for ACW editing
You may find this page useful for editing ACW articles. Also WP:MILMOS and WP:ACW will probably be of interest to you as well. Keep up the good work...;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 Libyan protests
Hey there, How are you? Hope all well with you. The reason we are trying to fork the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page is because its going to get bigger everyday. So we are trying to add all the details (of the Libyan protests) in the main article (2011 Libyan protests) while just keeping a small summary in 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page. IF everyone added the timeline, noone will be able to view nor edit the page whatsoever. Please look at the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to understand what I mean. I have worked on Tunisian one and started the Egyptian one. Let me know you need any help. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

re. Reversion of major edit to Revolutionary Communist Party entry
Hello, yes I am still active. And yes, I too highly value civil discussion. I do realize that you were very upset about my edit and I do see on your user page that you consider yourself an Inclusionist Wikipedian. So that may be part of your objection since the new edit is quite different in conception from the previous edit, even if this new edit is far more accurate when in comes to the essential content and does include aspects of the previous version even if organized differently. However, the pre-existing entry had very many weaknesses which I have described and others have pointed out. These past problems were longstanding, so the arguement that the article had been "stable" for a long time and on that basis should remain intact is not a valid one. I am not going to go on at length here again as to all the reasons for my edit. They are explained in both my initial remarks on the article on the talk page and on my explanation for reverting your reversion. It is not my intention to be curt or dismissive here, just straightforward. It's just that I think my explanations there are quite valid. Again, I think that my reworking of the article does much more accurately portray the Revolutionary Communist Party and its views as well as those of Bob Avakian without being tendencious. And that is the issue here in terms of what Wikipedia is about. There is nothing in my edit that is propagandistic. The article adheres to NPOV throughout. I can guarentee you that in researching and writing the article I took great pains to be objective and accurate about the subject of the article. As I said in my entry on the article talk page I am someone who is very interested in left and radical politics and philosophy, but at the same time feel the responsibility to evaluate and present all political views accurately and clearly. It is that same spirit that I am replying to you here. EyesWhyde (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that EyesWhyde had once again reverted the article to the version that did not gain consensus. I have not followed the controversy very long so you should go take a look at it to make sure.  It appears that EyesWhyde is engaged in edit warring and if that is the case someone closer to the controversy and more knowledge about it should report the user for edit warring.  --Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)