User talk:Kenfree

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Kenfree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

The Green Book
Hi Ken. It is not appropriate in interpolate commentaries in the text of an article. The place to raise these concerns is on the article's talk page. Please raise your issues here. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I started the thread about your behavior at ANI. Please comment there. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation request
This is in response to your email to the Mediation Committee requesting mediation of a dispute at RT (TV network). Before requesting mediation please thoroughly read and consider the Mediation Committee Policy, giving particular note to the "Principles," "What is mediation?," and "Prerequisites" sections. If you still desire mediation after familiarizing yourself with the policy, submit your request through the "File a request" section of the Requests for mediation page, as the Committee does not accept or consider requests made via email. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC), Chairperson

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled
PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article, there is an identical post under this headline, thank you.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming an propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the Etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" [maybe seemingly] reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" [maybe seemingly] reads like a script of (history) accusations [the obligatory picture of Mr.Medvedev and Mr.Putin behind the scenes, having a watchful eye on the operations] ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin [the personified Satan cough, cough]", (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

private response to your invitation to the formal mediation
Let's do this.

Concerning Ymblanter thatswhy I wrote "understands somewhat" about the issue. In his post "Proposed reorganization of RT (TV network) page" he concedes that rt is singled out, but I very much disagree with his propaganda statement insofar that if the feature propaganda is added to journalism you would have to have similar introductionary statements for ALL other journalistic organizations. The purpose to inform someone is never just for the sake of informing someone but the act of informing, given it is "true", carries in itself the sting "calling" for acting accordingly. I think this is something he will agree on no matter if he is a participant or not.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages
Why are you mangling my re-pings? Please read WP:TPO. If you wanted to amend the text in the barnstar you awarded, make the change to your own text and mark it as being a minor edit, and provide a relevant edit summary such as "ce - amending wording in barnstar". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I interfered with your re-ping in any way, I do apologize. I was not simply editing the wording in the barnstar, but also attempting to move it out of the "talkback" section of the page where I thought I had inadvertently intruded. Something must have gotten lost in the translation... Kenfree (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've taken a look at the earlier edit and can see what you were trying to accomplish. As it was my re-ping, I'll move the mucked up bit down to the latest talkback so that the sections are obviously separated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally,, please read WP:TALKNEW. I'm referring to the header for the section: "Never use headings to attack other users." Not only is "accusation" unwarranted, it is a blatant personal attack on me misrepresenting my comment and tone on on your talk page. Also, please read user talk page notes. If you take a look, you will see that I specify — If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it; if you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place on your talk. There is no need to cut and paste my entire missive and retitle it on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request
I'd like to call your attention to a motion on the RT talk page (57 Motion NPOV tag) that I started. This is, in my opinion, a more actionable step towards reaching the goal of an article that fulfills the NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network) falls under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

RT and the bbc ref
'Adapting techniques inherited from the old KGB, say the authors, RT makes extensive use of conspiracy theories that serve to undermine a "reality-based discourse". This, they argue, then creates the conditions in which the Kremlin can advance its own disinformation to "confuse situations at critical junctures".

They give as examples a spurious RT report about Jews fleeing Ukraine over anti-Semitism, equally bogus insinuations that a US think tank was advising Ukrainian President Poroshenko to carry out ethnic cleansing, and the spreading of conspiracy theories concerning the downing of Malaysian airliner MH17 over east Ukraine in July.'

so the ref does mention RT and disinformation - I don't know what you are saying really in denying that - Sayerslle (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at RT (TV network). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The following edits were reverts per policy (all on November 17): 14:34, 14:50, two consecutive edits completed at 18:09, 19:04, and 21:10. That's five reverts. The last revert occurred after you were notified of the edit warring report filed at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)