User talk:CountMacula

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CountMacula, 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:

• 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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia Today

Please do not blank sections of articles as you have done here. You may have explained yourself in the summary but that doesn't provide you with a licence to go cancelling full contributions. The ways in which to handle such edits is like this: firstly you can tag the section either original research or citation needed and this invites the author to improve the section. Then there is the question of filing the piece properly, and had I spotted the same piece in a different place I wouldn't have worried so much. Thirdly you are free to modify the text, remove bits, add others, etc. Alternatively you can do some of all three, tag parts, move the section and still edit it. Blanket reverts however are very hostile and widely discouraged as it cannot signal good faith. I simply ask that you consider your actions from this point. Defence of a channel can only mean countering the attacks and one of the criticisms RT receives is that it fails to produce coverage of material contrary to the angle that it represents and this was one more way of refuting the claims. Sources can easily be added to this effect. To that end, I am more than happy to discuss this entire issue with you here or on my talk page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be hostile. Your content may make sense, but it appears after all to be mostly opinion and argumentation original to you. I expected you would know how to retrieve your deleted text (view history --> compare selected versions), and now I hope you know the content is not lost. Can you attribute the claims you make to reliable published sources? The sources should make the main point that the show you mention is evidence that RT is unbiased, fair, or otherwise refutes claims against RT. But I wish you would think about starting a section that describes the most popular shows on RT. Do you think the content you provided would fit better there? Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't known which particular shows rank most popular, obviously WP:OR is inappropriate as you rightly say but I just felt on this occasion the point made was obvious froim the nature of the programme. That said, I've been thinking and maybe you have another point. These shows such as Crosstalk, Kaiser Report and the Al Gurnov Interview are shows but they are not the news as such and this is the key issue when debating whether a 24 news channel is biased. The additional shows may complement the bulletins, be heavily influences by the correspondents, but they remain a separate entity. To this end, it should be all right for one of us to remove that section and write in the summary that it is per our discussion, not that other users seem worried whether it is there or not. As for keeping the piece, you are right that it is easy when searching through the history and no hard work is required. When a section does appear for the shows of the channel, I should be able to find this piece easily enough and paste it through to the relevant part - chopping and changing it and producing sources. That should suffice I feel. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)