User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2020/August

vandalism
I'm a newer user, so I don't want to overstep by escalating vandalism warnings if it isn't appropriate, but I noticed you had already given a warning over the Statue of Lenin (Seattle) page, but vandalism has continued. Sorry to bother you with this, but as I said, I would appreciate the help of a veteran user on this as I am fairly new. Nangears (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Belarusian presidential election
Jeppiz, I saw that you reverted my removal of the POV tag and accused me of vandalism. Please refrain from casting aspersions. It was not vandalism, and I explained why I removed it thoroughly on the talk page and in the edit summary. You have to articulate an actual POV problem for the tag to stay up there. There is clear consensus to include the official results on the page. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Tartan357, "vandalism" might be strong but it is not good editing. I've now included a section on the obvious POV but the talk page made it clear even before that there is a strong POV-concern expressed by many users. Nobody is disputing we should include the rigged results, but pretending they are correct and uncontested is contrary to all WP policies, and there is no "clear consensus" to do that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Tartan357, seeing that tou have again removed the tag, there is hardly any room for doubt: yes, it is vandalism. You're actively pushing your own agenda, ignoring key policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism. You are ignoring the consensus on the talk page, and didn't even bother to respond to my reply to your comment. Accuse me of vandalism one more time and I'll take you to ANI. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's not vandalism. I disagree both with your conclusion and with your description. I don't see this consensus you keep claiming; quite the contrary, I see an active discussion. As I've already mentioned in my reply on the article talk page, I also disagree entirely on your interpretation of RS. Jeppiz (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not apply to primary sources in the way that you seem to think it does. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is of course one possibility, I may have misunderstood RS. An equally likely possibility is that you're the one misunderstanding it. We'll hardly get any further than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the election commission is not the original, primary source of the official results, then what is? This argument doesn't make any sense. Lukashenko is in power illegitimately, but he's still in power, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. His government controls the official results. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus I see is at Talk:2020 Belarusian presidential election and in every other election article on Wikipedia, including articles on show elections. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and illogical comments do not override consensus based on sheer volume. I and others have repeatedly said that the inclusion of the results is not an endorsement of them, but you're ignoring that and continuing to allege that we are endorsing them. You have to actually articulate a WP:POV problem to use that tag, and by that I mean you have to say specifically what text in the article shows a non-neutral point of view. I and others in the discussion fully agree with you that the results are unfair. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I do get your point. I still disagree, for reasons I have explained. You are probably right that this one article in particular is not the place to challenge the practice (which is a practice, not a policy) regardless of whether I think it's right or wrong. Thanks for the explanations, have a good day. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)