This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdd(talk | contribs) at 19:55, 25 May 2007(Archiving part of the discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 19:55, 25 May 2007 by Mdd(talk | contribs)(Archiving part of the discussion)
Revert back to the last edit by fixaller, include the representative graphic, and EXPAND on that. The article at that stage was reviewed and corrected by many authorities from within the field. Improvement beyond that state is not to reinvent the article, and in the process failing to grasp the essential uniqueness of systems theory, but to elaborate on the skeleton provided. At least what is written will be correct. Granted, systems theory is different and very difficult to grasp, but it is necessary that this difference be appreciated and the difficulty overcome. 69.47.35.9302:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to do what you like. Part of working on Wikipedia is understanding that your work might be altered by other users. Also, I must say that I think it is quite odd that you boast of going out of your way to have an outside review of the page while criticizing Wikipedia. Quite rude, I think. But, do as you like. I might make only a final suggestion that you at least make sure that contributions are more than just content cut and pasted from websites. --Kenneth M Burke03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(... The Following was intended for 69.47.35.93 and the somewhat out of nowhere, challenging comments:
You came out of nowhere saying the page would not be respected because of a photo. The article is not perfect, but I believe that it has been significantly improved. I have chosen to step aside, and evidently do not own the page. Either there are individuals genuinely interested in improving the article, or they are just here to throw their weight around on the discussion board. How easy it is to sit back and criticize. You are certainly more than welcome to provide any contributions that you might have in order to constructively problem-solve issues with the article. No disrespect intended, no harm done as I am done. --Kenneth M Burke20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)... )
I was also under the impresion that we had to do with a new editor and that was why I made these lay out corrections. But now I've the feeling we are talking to fixaller in both discussion items. Or is it that Fixaller (or what other usernames he used) is giving an answer for 214.4.238.61 - Mdd03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
