Sorry I was being a bit testy earlier. I consider anons who erase things with no edit summaries as vandals automatically, and that's accepted practice on Wikipedia. Personally I think the section flows better with an intro. It lets a casual reader glance at the themes and get a quick overview. As an article gets longer it needs such transition paragraphs. I wish someone with more access to lit-crit material would expand the section with more themes as has been suggested by others on the talk page. I have the book watchlisted because it was one of my favorites growing up, and for some reason it goes through periods of heavy (or sometimes subtle) vandalism, as you've been kind enough to help revert in the past. NJGW (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I watch the article for the same reason. I love the novel. It troubled me from the beginning that the feminist agenda was sullying it. I too would like to see the other "themes" expanded, to balance that section. Together, with the help of others, we can improve the article in the future.

In a related note, your posts were very belligerent, combative even. Every time you interact with me, from the very first time, has been with a very belligerent tone. Perhaps your dialect is more direct than mine? I know some dialects in the north-eastern US and some western US dialects sound very inimical to outsiders. Whatever the reason, it elicits a corresponding tone in others, myself included. Remember, one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. And the general rule of Wikipedia is to assume good will. Cheers. Rapparee71 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I try to switch it up based on the situation... and when I feel something is being censored it brings out a blunter side of me. I've seen some intense POV pushing here, and it kind of scares me the types of things people actually believe in this world (or more often pretend to believe so that it excuses some other actions). I'm glad we finally got some text we could both agree on, even if it isn't balanced properly (which I agree with you about... I just don't like throwing out legitimate text for lack of some other text). NJGW (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny now, but when I first started editing the article, I didn't realise that there would be people out there that would actually defend the whole "misogyny" and "feminist" point of view so violently, even if they were defending it for policy only. I like Wikipedia, but I completely disagree with some of it's policies and rules. There are sister projects out there that I believe fit better in the real world. One of the major problems with Wikipedia is it's immediate dismissal of "original research". Every encyclopaedia ever written has had original research. I fully understand the reasoning behind the decision to have that rule, but it severely limits the work. This is pertinent to the gender issues seen in Watership Down, the idea that since a few people wrote papers (their opinions) and had them published, that their viewpoint is automatically valid, is ludicrous. Just because you get published doesn't make your work true or valid. There is too much concentration on policy at Wikipedia it seems. Blind adherence to the rules gets in the way of the spirit of the rules. Rapparee71 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it increases the legwork on creating an article, but if you get a really controversial topic to featured status, the most focused POV attack can't touch it. I don't like that my writing here gets curbed to a journalistic style, but that's just the type of project it is. On the other hand, I feel weird even thinking about telling people what to think through blogs... I prefer answering questions, and correcting misstatments. NJGW (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I too thought it was vandalism, if possible, place a summary stating what you are doing --Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Republic of Ireland. I've expained why here. I hope you understand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because a bot does not make a good judge of consensus. It is up to the people participating in the discussion to decide if it should be moved or not, and if there is a consensus in favor, it gets moved by a human. —harej (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WUGA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]