User talk:Alfred Nemours

July 2017
Please see my reply at Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing for why spamming multiple talk pages with exactly the same text is not a good idea.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please take a minute to actually read the comment itself. Your point is addressed right at the top. The comment is furthermore not an "argument" but merely articulates a concern that is relevant to discussions of several events. On the contrary, the concern raised by the comment is the possibility that what has been summarily called an "attack" is actually an argument in the guise of disinterested reporting on an event. This concern has been posted in the talk page of such discussions, so that it does not get in the way of any article (but is at the same time available to those who care enough about an entry to read and register concerns about its background or accuracy). It is merely one unobtrusive bulletpoint among many. (It is of some length only because I wanted to register the concern with some explanation.) Feel free to dismiss the concern. But I want to register the concern in an unobtrusive bulletpoint of the talk page where relevant for those who might care enough about an individual event to consider the way it has been characterized. The concern may be inapt. But calling expression of this concern "spam" isn't fair, since it is not pushing anything nor is it obtrusive. It rather pauses to consider a point fundamental to more than one article that much discussion has simply glossed over. One of the things that gives wikipedia so much potential as a source of information is the opportunity for many individuals with diverse understandings of a given topic to raise questions and concerns via the talk page without fear of being railroaded or silenced, even if those concerns do not end up getting reflected in the substance of the article itself.Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you may not have known this, but starting multiple discussions on fundamentally the same subject (the use of the word 'attack') is not helpful to you or others. No one is going to want to read so many pages on this one issue. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for writing to me. I wasn't trying rather to decentralize discussion or anything like that. I was simply trying register a concern with fellow readers that I find to be serious and fundamental to our understanding of an event. It so happens that this concern pertains to more than one event. A reader with a specific interest in a deep and accurate understanding of recent events in London might not ever see a relevant concern that was only raised on a page relating to Manchester. This bulletpoint was posted more than once for exactly the reason you give: no one should have to read so many articles to find a concern that is relevant to all of them. I hope this bulletpoint was posted unobtrusively--by registering a concern with fellow readers in a forum where space is not an issue and where bulletpoints are hyperlinked, facilitating easy navigation. Only a reader interested in the background to a page can find it, and even in this case the bulletpoint is easy to simply skip over.   Alfred Nemours (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are solely for raising issues about faults with/ways of improving articles. We don't have forums for reader-reader contact. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well-taken. I have raised faults, and specifically with the hope of ultimately improving descriptive quality. However, please understand that the concern raised pertains to what is perceived as a tendency to portray individual events in a highly misleading, largely uniform context. I don't think the interests of improved quality would be achieved by simply rushing to substitute one uniformly misleading context for another. So far there's been little to indicate that anyone has even read the concern raised, let alone understood it. Nearly all of the few replies I've gotten back have made some clever remark about the word "attack," or have stated conclusorily that "attack is a correct characterization" of the attack. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate any real attempt reply to a concern I've raised. But I guess I'm feeling like a slow advance toward meaningful improvement on a topic is preferable to quick moves toward either more of the same or worse.   Alfred Nemours (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page edits
Please do not spam article talk pages with that huge wall of text. If you have issue with a wide rage of articles, I recommend you go to the village pump to discuss it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please take a minute to actually read the comment itself, which addresses your point right at the outset. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. There is no issue of limited space. I have merely raised this concern as one unobtrusive bulletpoint among many on a talk page where relevant to the discussion of an event, for those who might care enough about an individual event to consider the way it has been characterized. The concern may be inapt. But as already mentioned, I don't think that calling expression of this concern "spam" is on point, since it is not pushing anything nor is it obtrusive. It rather pauses to consider a point fundamental to more than one article that much discussion has simply glossed over. Alfred Nemours (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - You are basically spamming - as in "repeating the same content over and over and over again" - your own posts. Your "replies" are often pretty much the same content "Please take a minute to actually read the comment itself... (etc.)"  If you have an issue with the usage of the word "attack" within the pages of Wikipedia because you think it is disparaging certain groups, then, I am in agreement with  -  I suggest you take the issue up at an appropriate Village Pump and not spread out/decentralize any possible discussions over multiple (23 at last count!) pages throughout Wikipedia.Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing to me. My two replies were identical where I thought that they responded to the same criticism. As for the comment, the goal was never to decentralize discussion. It was not even to stimulate discussion or any editorial changes in the way any articles are structured. It was simply to register a concern with fellow readers that I find to be serious and fundamental to our understanding of an event. It so happens that this concern pertains to more than one event.  I simply posted the comment where I thought it was applicable--again, under an unobtrusive bullet in the talk page, bothering no one yet available to an interested reader.  A reader with a specific interest in a deep and accurate understanding of recent events in London might not ever see a bulletpoint raised on a page relating to Manchester. I can see an interest in centralizing discussion that relates to proposed action on an agenda item. But no action is being proposed. I am simply registering a concern with fellow readers in a forum where space is not an issue and where bulletpoints are hyperlinked, facilitating easy navigation. I thought that's one of the things wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be about.   Alfred Nemours (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From wp:Talk Pages: "Talk pages (also known as discussion pages) are administration pages where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages." Rmhermen (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's not a forum and it's not to be used to discuss general social opinions. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  17:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No "general social opinions" were raised and no discussion was aired as if in some kind of a general "forum." Rather, specific problems raised that are common to more than one WP entry. These problems were raised with an eye toward specific improvements in WP (specifically problems relating to tendentious and predictable undermining of NPOV, and recentism, for example).  You are welcome and encouraged to respond with an alternative perspective, to disagree about potential solutions to the problem, and even to disagree about formulations of the problem itself.  But your own personal views should not justify either willful blindness on a problem underlying more than entry, or the blanket silencing of alternative perspectives on how to improve these and future entries on WP. Alfred Nemours (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the "attack" discussions have been moved to WP:VPM in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. If I missed tagging any of them, feel free to post a note where I missed it with a pointer to the new discussion location. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing/visiting this criticism and the two others below for the first time. No point raised has been for "general discussion" or for use as a "forum" or "chat room".  The only points raised have been specific for improving articles. Please don't mistake detailed advance explanation of a specific problem (which it seems you never even read) for "general discussion".  We're not talking about reading books here--I mean the points I raised were several sentences, maybe 5 minutes reading, tops.  Don't get locked into a twitter-like, no attention-span mindset of being unable to read a couple of paragraphs.Alfred Nemours (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Wikipedia is not a political blog or social sciences essay; this has already been explained to you on various talk pages. See WP:TALK for the guidelines. Please find something that is supported by reliable secondary sources, and not based on personal commentary, opinion or analysis.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No social science nor "personal commentary" was raised on the few points that came up. Everything was from sources. A brief of contrast of two WP articles was even supplied. Nothing very deep here, guys.


 * The points raised were straightforward and, to be frank, kind of obvious. They were restated more than once. I hope these kinds of responses have not been typical on Wikipedia talk. IF so, it doesn't bode well for the project. Good additions will be harder to come by.Alfred Nemours (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four, you may be blocked from editing. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No clue what was being referred to as "disruptive editing" or "inappropriate discussion." I asked a question on an Orwell/Blair essay. The question was driven by two passages from the author's own essays.  They indicated that the author had bad English journalism in mind in addition to Russian journalism among his targets. Time, Life, and Newsweek were among the highest circulating weeklies in the English speaking world.


 * One of the key words which an author uses to describe propaganda rhymes with Newsweek. Not very deep stuff here, guys. Orwell/Blair was a cop in the Imperial police in Burma who turned to novel writing, and Animal farm and 1984 are for kids. Again, nothing very deep or social sciency.Alfred Nemours (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The argument that "Newspeak" and "Newsweek" are linked is pretty thin stuff and looks like a classic example of a spurious relationship. You could write a book about this type of fallacy, here is a famous example.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me)


 * You guys really need to read more carefully. I can't read everything for you, by your side, in your daily lives. I wasn't supplying my own opinion of Newsweek magazine, I was simply asking if the writer of a novel, by using a rhyming word, was thereby alluding to it. And as this implies, this was in fact a question. Not an argument. Please don't mistake questions for arguments. All the bestAlfred Nemours (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)