User talk:Altoids0

Tendency of the rate of profit to fall

Your edit summary at Tendency of the rate of profit to fall stated: I have summarily deleted whole subsections which I personally felt didn't contribute to my understanding or seemed irrelevant to TRPF. That's not to say that their topics couldn't be reintegrated or made into something more concise, I just really want to trim this article. Your personal feelings about the quality of the article content are not entirely relevant, and do not give you permission to delete major portions of the article which are properly cited. If you have issues with the content of the article, please take them up at the article's talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:

I hope I can just quickly make a response here instead of having to go through the full process to resolve a dispute, if you'll pardon my impatience. I understand that deleting a large amount of data at once like that is normally frowned upon and often vandalizing for an article of smaller size, but Tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a behemoth of an article, with 160 kB of very long prose, more than twice the preferred size, a size it apparently has maintained for the past six years without repair, if the template is anything to go by. Additionally, it is filled with language that seems practically illegible to the layman. When editing, I genuinely laughed at both the use of the word "econometrically" and its shocking eleven occurrences throughout the article.

What is said in the article is very well-cited and deeply descriptive, I will not dispute that. However, I think it is quite obvious that the article is far too long, so some removal of more tangential information was justified.

I hope you'll take what I've said here as good evidence of, if not why my deletion should be preserved, at least my lack of malicious intent. Thanks. Altoids0 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A discussion of this sort at the talk page prior to an edit summary expressing that the article did not meet your personal approval might have saved quite a bit of time. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I didn't really expect anyone to come to the rescue of what I deleted, especially since most of it was written by a person whose multiple user accounts were banned years ago. It's odd to me to consider starting arguments with people who aren't there, if I can be blunt, although I will say I am new to having a dispute on a Wikipedia edit. Altoids0 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)