User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2013/August

Landrieu and Begich
One of the major failings thus far of Wikipedia is that it celebrates the detached outsider perspective, inviting scorn from those who know better. "Oh, but that's original research". Ahem, anyway. The reason I bring this up is that I go back some years with Mark and Tom Begich, making this a tough one to be terribly involved with. Nonetheless, I'm glad that there are others who see those edits for what they are. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  07:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the words of encouragement. I just regret that I didn't catch it earlier, both there and at Mary Landrieu.  I've reverted similar attempts to turn other articles (like Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin) into partisan attack pieces, as well.  I just wish folks would take their campaigns and bickering elsewhere.  Perhaps Conservapedia and Liberapedia.  It isn't the point of this project...   user: j  (talk)  07:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich

Hello! I've replied to CFredkin on the DRN noticeboard regarding these two articles. I have outlined my thoughts there; unfortunately, I didn't realize that you were not planning on commenting there. I would encourage you to do so, as I think this dispute can be figured out fairly easily once both of you articulate your viewpoints at DRN. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Theodore! I don't take any issue with your logic, and your points make perfect sense to me.  However, I don't think these "cases" are an appropriate use of the dispute resolution process.  CFredkin's decisions on what content to remove and what content to add — not to mention the pejorative language he weaselled into the articles — made it clear to me his edits were not at all in line with wp:npov.  Where he removed content based on his concerns with sourcing, he generally added content that likewise was not reliably sourced to a third-party, oftentimes with no significant indication that the data he was adding was biographically significant or relevant.  (As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia biographies are not meant to be a coatrack for partisan opinions of politicians, nor a collection of scorecards from every partisan thinktank.)  These are all concerns that I suspect would be echoed by other editors were CFredkin to propose his changes on the talk pages of any of these articles.  That's what he needs to do.  If every editor who wants to get their opinions into an article were able to simply manufacture a "dispute" with any single editor that disagreed with them, we'd be working on quite an unpleasant project.  The correct course of action for CFredkin is to propose his changes on the article talk pages.  As I said before, his dispute is not with me, it's with wp:5p, and, more specifically, with wp:npov and wp:blp.   user: j  (talk)  01:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems as if talk page discussion hasn't been "extensive"; that is a requirement at DRN. I'll try to reroute discussion to the Landrieu and Begich talks.  Thanks, —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Been busy out in the real world, just trying to catch up on a few things here.  I went over some of the discussion regarding this issue.  One thing I noticed about the original edits, which I don't believe anyone may have noticed or pointed out: CFredkin was correct in that the source wasn't changed – it was THE ACCESSDATE which was changed .  If that particular source said one thing three years ago yet says another thing today, I believe CFredkin was eager to capitalize on this, perhaps playing dumb about such an important detail, seeing as how everyone else overlooked it as well. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)