User talk:Abossone

Your recent edit to Garlic[edit]

Hi, please try discussing why you wish to remove that section on its Talk Page before you remove it. Pursey 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a person whose ancestors come from southern Europe, I find it offensive to say that certain cultures have more "tolerance" for the smell of garlic and that northern Europeans are the only ones that thoroughly cook garlic before eating it. I don't see why I have to discuss cultural insentivities before deleting them.

Because, you are the only one who has taken offence so far. ie. The only one to bring it up. And yours is not a Neutral Point of View. I have also reverted your edit to Cumin for the same reason; you've blanked a section without discussion. Pursey 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued blanking to sections of Garlic[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to blank sections of articles without discussion on the talk page, I will refer the issue to an Administrator. Pursey 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a talk page discussion on your behalf. Please do not blank the section until a consensus is reached. Pursey 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my view is not neutral. If I read an article about fried chicken and it said that it was typically eaten by black people, and I was African American, would it be appropriate for me to find offense?

The original entry was biased to begin with, and if you fail to see that, then you are not approaching it from a culturally sensitive viewpoint. I edited cumin for this reason as well. To say that these have particular smells is borderline racist. People think to themselves, oh, that's why Lebanese smell bad because they eat garlic. Or Indians smell like curry because of cumin.

There are Asian cultures that believe when adults consume dairy products, their bodies emit a particular odor. But you do not find this in the entry for milk or dairy. Although this is written in English, I assume that Wikipedia aims to publish articles from a global viewpoint, rather than a northwestern European one.

I do understand your point of view, but please discuss it on the talk page, and see how it goes :) Your particpation is certainly welcomed, but there is a process for these things. Pursey 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe a discussion is necessary and to fight with me on it is to overly compulsive about following the process. Wikipedia also follows the principle of good faith, whereas when someone makes an edit, it is with the idea of improving an article to make it more factual and not opinionated, which happens even when sourced. I assume you are familiar with the policy of good faith, and therefore will allow these deletions.

I continued the deletion, again, because it violates Wikipedia's policy of geographic bias. Please refer to this section if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSB

Personally, I don't think the content in question meets that policies intent. But, I'm not going to revert your edits because I don't want to start an edit war. I still feel discussion on the talk page prior to deletion would have been far more appropriate. I've referred this to an Administrator, hopefully they'll take a look. I'm happy to be proven wrong :) Pursey 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule[edit]

Hi; Please review the three-revert rule. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Repeatedly undoing others' work is not useful. Use the talk page to discuss what you want to do, and see if there is a consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abossone 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)The revert rule should apply to the person who reverted back to the original state after I made a deletion. The appropriate thing for that person to do would have been to start a discussion to revert it back, rather than put the impetus on the person making a deletion. So yes, I agree, undoing others' work is not useful.[reply]