User talk:The Four Deuces
2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Dear TFD, as you know in the past I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And who knows may be I am the guilty one.
I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is a very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certyfied the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.
I requested to an experience user. Finding people to certify/endorse an RfC/u is not canvassing.
I was adding this article to AfD at the same time and as a result created a second AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titles related to socialist cults of personality. I'm not sure what to do. I've never discussed to articles for deletion at the same time. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are instructions at WP:AfD. Normally they should be created at the same time. I think it is best to discuss the deletions together as they are basically the same article with two names. So I would delete your new AfD. TFD (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Judging by your recent participation in very similar discussions (in fact equivalent, but for another country), you may be interested in these: Talk:South_Yemen#Its_name, Talk:China#Single-party_state_too_socialist_republic.2Fstate Talk:North_Korea#Rfc:Is_north_korea_a_single_party_state_and_should_it_be_described_as_such.3F. Regards. Zozs (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I replied on the discussion page. To summarize my position, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is supposed to provide facts about subjects in proportion to how they are covered in reliable sources. Aspects of a subject that are given minimal or nil coverage in reliable secondary sources should not be mentioned.
You think the mainstream media (MSM) is wrong to ignore the Nobel issue and there for "ignore all rules" allows us to mention it. I interpret that policy to mean that we should ignore rules when they go against basic content policies. It is similar to equity in common law systems.
If editors were allowed to determine what is important about topics, then there would be far more disputes that at present with no way to resolve them. In any controversial topic, some editors would want to add positive or negative information which would affect the treatment of the subject one way or another. There are other wikis that do choose a different standard for neutrality.
There is also an issue of "biographies of living persons". Most people don't read Mark Steyn's columns or the types of publications he writes for, but they do read Wikipedia. So we would be taking information only covered in the echo chamber and presenting it to a wider audience. That would mean that Wikipedia editors would be in a position of pushing issues into the public arena, a role rightly left to MSM.
- Thanks for your thoughtful response.
- I don't "think the mainstream media (MSM) is wrong to ignore the Nobel issue and there for 'ignore all rules' allows us to mention it"; I think that even though the MSM doesn't mention it anymore, Mann himself has, copiously, indicating its importance to him, and therefore we should IAR.
- Btw, Steyn, et al, are RSs for their own opinions on Mann, and they are notable.
- Wrt WP:IAR, there aren't any rules that go against basic content policies; there are just situations in which the best way to build the encyclopedia means not pedantically adhering to the letter of some rule. "Its purpose is to keep them [other rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia." In my view, refusing to acknowledge an issue that existed in reality and that has been much bandied about on many web pages, some of which are written by professionals in journalism or science, sabotages the encyclopedia. The fact that numerous readers have complained about the lack tells me the opposite of what you say: I think they read Steyn, et al, and then come to WP for the straight dope. I doubt if many people randomly wind up on the Michael E. Mann page without previously reading about him elsewhere.
- But I hear what you're saying about "pushing issues into the public arena" wrt a BLP. What do you think about a footnote quoting Mann: A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award followed by a note that he immediately cleared up the confusion as soon as the IPPC advised him of the facts? Yopienso (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Some editors think it very important to tell readers how many Jews there are in various organizations. We could for example include in the info-box for the U.S. Congress "Number of Jews: 22 (5%)." (In the Senate it's 12%!) We can even source it to a pro-Jewish group. There are lots and lots of websites that discuss matters like this, from Metapedia to JewWatch. The argument made at Jews and Communism (now deleted) is that it is not anti-Semitic to provide that type of information, and it allows editors to decide for themselves.
- How is your position any different? In both cases, fringe sources find something important because it advances their agenda. Sometimes the mainstream picks up on it, sometimes they do not.
- TFD (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why exactly do you keep reverting the page on Nazism? The page is incorrect. The page contra indicts itself and I'm trying to correct it so that it, 1) makes sense and 2) doesn't contradict itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)