Jump to content

User talk:The Banner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.173.110.130 (talk) at 13:45, 7 August 2012 (→‎Re: Gasparovic revision). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I try to the best of my knowledge and belief to contribute to the small red block of the image

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article size

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article size. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoy

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sonoy, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.tript.com/site/Alkmaar.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joke! Otherwise, I can only assume that MadmanBot has gone mad! Night of the Big Wind talk 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Re: Gasparovic revision

Just a heads up: I will be deleting, one final time, the section dealing with the controversy. It is an extremely marginal topic, and has zero place in Slovak political discourse. It is being singled out for nefarious reasons by Hungarian nationalists to further an agenda (specifically, the rehabilitation of János Esterházy, the article of whom is also in need of a great deal of work to be NPOV). As such, the article on Gasparovic is unbalanced, politically charged and creates a incomplete and skewed picture for the disinterested reader. The section adds nothing towards the article itself, and cannot be improved without an extreme amount of work on the article itself (i.e. without adding every single inconsequential dispute and controversy, either domestic or international, that Gasparovic has been part of). The fact that the content is sourced (from a single low-quality web-only source) is not reason enough to override the safeguards that exist to protect BLPs and to make sure articles are balanced and NPOV.

As I said, it will be my last revert: For me this is a test case, and if it is this simple to hijack Wikipedia for political reasons and for the purpose of editorializing history, and if any actions done to remedy this issue are blocked and on a BLP page no less, then my efforts here are futile.

Please let me know if there is anything else you need to know, or what I can do. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you criticizes has multiple sources. The politics.hu is an English language website and hardly be accused of nationalism. Furthermore the text includes the President's and the Slovak view. And, of course the Hungarian viewpoint too. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text has, as its source, two articles from a single medium: politics.hu. The president's view (perhaps also, at the same time, the Slovak view) is explained first in one sentence, and then refuted by two (the author was even bold enough to use the phrase "in fact", so that we may never be in doubt on what the facts of the matter are). Gasparovic's view is again revisited in two more sentences, and they are immediately refuted by two paragraphs. In total, the pro-Esteházy view is presented in eleven separate sentences.
However, the amount of space dedicated to the views of either side is irrelevant, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Simply: this is not a significant controversy, and is only being made to look like one for political purposes (again, to rehabilitate János Esterházy). Indeed, the section was written for this very specific purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.21.162.2 Note the words "martyr". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not easy to hijack Wikipedia for your own POV. Secondly, the parts that you removed were properly sourced. I don't think the article was unbalanced, because the removed and restored parts were in a clearly marked section "Controversies". If you want to balance an article, you should have added information. Not remove undesired text and editwarring. The Banner talk 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a single controversy in the section "controversies", surely it is to be expected that this is his greatest controversy, or that this is a controversy that defines the person: but in fact it is not, by far. I have explained why I chose to delete the section, not add information: if I were to add all the controversies that are of equal or greater prominence, and gave them similar weight, the article would be nothing more than a list of this persons controversies. I do not believe "being sourced" is the only criterion when considering whether to include text in wikipedia. Please have a look at my whole argument. Imagine if the article on Obama included a section titled "controversies" with three paragraphs only his disagreement to open CIA archives on UFOs. While surely true, and probably well sourced, I believe it is clear that the section would hinder, not improve the article. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear: it is not me or you to decide if an article is unbalanced. It is up to the community. And editwarring over it is absolutely not done. Consider yourself a happy man for having the article locked in your version AND for escaping a block for editwarring. But I'll promise you: when you continue the editwarring, you will not escape a block. The Banner talk 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many people make a community? I was bold and decided to improve an unbalanced article, gave my reasons and was open to discussion. My changes were reverted without comment. It is not I that was editwarring. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It is considered editwarring when someone reverts three times within 24 hours. You reverted 5 times in six hours. That is clearly editwarring.
Secondly, I don't see any attempt of you to open the discussing at the talkpage. The Banner talk 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where exactly the I was supposed to start the discussion. I gave the reasons for the changes in the edit summary, if there was a better place to put it, I would gladly have done so. Instead, my changes were reverted and my reasons for making them ignored. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=506229838"