User talk:KU2018

I am mainly active on weekdays late morning/early afternoon (British time). Happy 2018 everyone! I manage the content of Kingston University IP talk pages - feel free to discuss any issues so I can deal with them. KU2018 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, KU2018, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —Paleo Neonate – 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

RT fails our test for sourcing. Per WP:RS, sources must be all of reliable, independent and secondary. RT is not reliable. Neither is Breitbart. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Breitbart News, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. DO NOT CHANGE without consensus. See Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right in the lead? - MrX 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason: The text is blatant libel - No place on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia consensus decided that Bush did 9/11, it would still be defamatory! We may need an uninvolved administrator to remove all traces of the legally troublesome text. KU2018 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the linked discussion? At least 40 reliable sources describe Breitbart as Far-Right. If you think it's libel, please pursue it with those sources. Please be mindful of Wikipedia:No legal threats.- MrX 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legal threat - did not mean it in that way. I had a look at the discussion and there was no consensus that the term 'far right' should be used like it is. There were more Opposes than Supports. The majority of articles claiming that Breitbart is far right are op-eds! The majority of op-eds try to show Donald Trump in a negative light, but we do not call Donald Trump a bad person, as the Breitbart article is with absolutely no context in the text, such as 'Breitbart is described as far-right. KU2018 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes; we evaluate the strength of the arguments as they relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.- MrX 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I had a look at the discussion and there was no consensus that the term 'far right' should be used like it is. There were more Opposes than Supports. You are lying, either about reading the discussions or about what you found in those discussions. I was involved in a large number of those discussions, and they all had very clear outcomes. In that case, there were 14 editors supporting inclusion of the term, and only 10 opposing. Habitually lying about easily verifiable information is one characteristic of new editors who quickly get indefinitely banned, especially when they have such a narrow topical focus as you (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW). Also, please read WP:CONSENSUS. Even if you were not lying about the count of editors, consensus is not a vote.

Also, see Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Right wing, Far right or both?, which rejected adding additional terms to "soften the blow", Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Far Right as a description of Breitbart? where a much more experienced editor than you attempted to make the same exact argument you have made here and failed horribly, Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 4#Biased source where a somewhat less experienced editor tried the same tact and ended up topic banned, Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Compromise_language:_"right-wing" and Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 3#Survey: Presenting far-right as an accusation, more complaints about the term that got nowhere and finally see Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Misleading description of far right site as "politically conservative" and Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Self identification as alt-right for some background as to how "far-right" became established in the lede (mostly due to Breitbart's shifting political position and an increase in deceptive journalistic practices). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I am not sure how you can 'soften the blow' from the text appearing in the first line of the article without any qualification or context (which dubiously asserts the text as an unquestionable fact. I am not here to edit war or anything like that, but to remove false assertions. There is a new discussion taking place. The fact that there have been so many 'split down the middle' discussions demonstrate not only is there no consensus to add far right, but there was never at any point consensus. KU2018 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IDHT, as well. Believe it or not, the editors commenting here are trying to help you avoid getting yourself in trouble and ending up topic banned or blocked from editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should not be topic banned. I am stating the case for why Breitbart should not be considered far right. I have the right to do this, as do people with the opposite opinion to mine.

This policy states that you should get to the point once consensus has been reached. I am arguing (1) that consuensus was never reached and (2) The wording of far right is dubious. Why should I not be able to do this? KU2018 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 14/10 thing was not intentional - it did not count properly. 58% with clear argument both ways is not consensus KU2018 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to make an argument; you do not have the right to make demands on other editors as you did in this edit summary. You do not have the right to lie about the results of past discussions, you do not have the right to willfully misrepresent what our policies and practices are, and you do not have the right to continue to push arguments that have clearly been rejected numerous times before to the disruption of this project. Tangentially, you do not have the right to edit wikipedia with a particular political agenda as your guiding principle; something which is very clear from your editing history. Also, please start indenting your comments appropriately; because you do not have the right to expect the rest of us to continue to do it for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The false statement was unintentional (apologies), the arguments before were not clearly rejected, which is a fundamental part of my argument. I am a moderate by the way, I am not right wing (fairly liberal to be honest). The reason I do this is I feel some articles give more precedence to arguments from the left than the right, with right wing articles shown in a more negative way. I just do this for neutrality. A lot more of op-ed mainstream articles are from a left wing viewpoint than a right, which to me appear to be relayed on Wikipedia as facts rather than opinions. I am not here to disrupt Wikipedia in any way at all. Also, you talk about me not having the right to tell editors what to do. So by that logic, why do you think you have the right to make demands left right and centre to me? KU2018 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I'll answer that last question: Because I know exactly what the current consensus on these issues is, and because I'm actually giving you strongly worded advice, not making demands. You are free to ignore me, but you do so "at your own peril".

Take 30 minutes and carefully read the links I gave you in the second paragraph of my first comment above. All of the arguments you have presented have been rejected before, by numerous editors (including me). This is not my first rodeo. Indeed, this is not my first time on this particular bull. I am intimately familiar with all of the sources and all of the past discussions about the political leanings of Breitbart, including details which escape many of the other experienced editors here For example: Breitbart has generally been strongly opposed to "birtherism", and has always been strongly supportive of Israel, despite frequent claims of the opposite, some of which even appear in the reliable sources, though not uncontested, of course.

I was very serious above when I said that I would prefer to help you avoid trouble. We need more good editors, and we need more good, thoughtful editors with conservative political views. Too many conservative editors have been trolls or just incompetent, and the admin's efforts to remove trolls and incompetent editors has helped breed an atmosphere which can be hostile to conservative editors (though our content does not seem to suffer much). I want more conservative editors contributing thoughtfully, intelligently and knowledgeably to our political articles. But brand new editors who claim to know policy better than veteran editors, brand new editors who create conflicts by jumping in head first into highly contested subjects, editors of any experience level who make repeated false statements (whether intentionally or not; and I am perfectly willing to accept your explanation of the miscount above) and editors who push notions which are out of step with the reliable sources (that Breitbart is not far-right, for example) do not last long, and do not tend to make meaningful contributions while they are here.

So please, listen to my advice. Responding to me is not important, but reading all those pages that I and others have is. Please read them, and start asking questions instead of making demands and arguing. You really don't have a firm grasp of policy (which is perfectly understandable) and community norms to tackle an issue like this and accomplish anything except shooting yourself in the foot, or souring yourself on editing. Those of us with more experience will be happy to answer questions and provide guidance. And while we're on the subject, I'll be leaving a notice for you in a new section below. I want to state (even though it is said in the notice) that this does not imply any wrongdoing on your part, but is simply letting you know. Please read it carefully. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave it. I very strongly disagree with the outcome of the discussions and how there were applied, but I am happy to walk away from this argument. It probably is the right thing to do. Thanks for your advice. KU2018 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to "walk away", just try to take a less confrontational approach. If there is anything I can do to help you understand why those discussions had the outcome they did, please ask. I thoroughly enjoy helping new editors get up to speed, and will happily answer questions at length. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is mainly to do with the fact that opinion pieces are being asserted as fact when they come from reliable sources. I do not believe it can be objectively said that Breitbart are right wing - nor do I think they fall into that category - I think that is reserved largely for the Nazi's and the KKK - quite a narrow definition. I do not agree with some of the stuff they say, I would not call myself conservative but I just believe lot of the mainstream: op-ed's, as well as cable news (CNN+MSNBC) to be left leaning, using emotive, forceful arguments to assert the moral high ground. I think this is done because they feel they have a duty to make us think in a certain way (acting in good faith with institutional bias), especially in relation to social issues. If these sources are doing this - according to Wikipedia's policies it has to follow these sources. I think this is problematic. What are your views on this? KU2018 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]