324:"The "ten-year test" is one simple thought experiment which may be helpful: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I would submit that the answer to that question is no. About a month has passed since the event and news coverage of it has dried up. Even 2 weeks afterwards, media coverage was essentially finished. If the story isn't getting coverage 2-4 weeks afterwards, I'd say the 10 year test is answered. Now, considering that I believe this to be a case of recentism, then take that to the BLP standards. I guess I could have been more clear about the progression, but I didn't think I was going to need to spell out the steps without being called a liar and a hypocrite.
586:
talk pages, allowing all editors, including uninvolved ones, to have their say and determine the best path of action. Please do not attack other editors, as this is not constructive the the project. Additionally, as your RFAR was declined, you may not attempt to "ban" another editor from editing a specific article. No one owns pages on
Knowledge, however if you contest content on a page then you may use talk pages to gain concensus. I have also replied with similar comments to the WQA you are involved in. Hope this helps, happy editing. --
263:"Sean Hannity has said that waterboarding in not torture, however during an interview with Charles Grodin on his TV show, Sean Hannity promised to be waterboarded for a charity to help the troops who are risking their lives for freedom. Kieth Olbermann as taken up Sean Hannity's commitment by offering $ 1000.00 for each second Sean Hannity can hold out. As of April 28, 2009, Sean Hannity has not accepted to be waterboarded for any charity whatsoever,to help the troops risking their lives in Iraq and Afganistan."
26:
389:
546:
See, you miss the fact that what you call "truth" and what others define the word to mean aren't always the same thing. And following steps are part of the process. Another process is the
Wikiquette alert noticeboard, where you will find a new discussion about you and your personal attack against me
514:
Now your agenda is exposed. You don't want compromise or anything. You just stated you want me restricted from the article. Period. Well your arbitration request went down 5 to 0, so I don't see a topic ban in the immediate future. However, I will keep track of this post from you though, as evidence
360:
Perhaps this is what you're referring to: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation
228:
Whilst conforming to
Knowledge's rules I have the right to my own viewpoint. I think you are mistaken when you say that my opinion is "hardly true". Let us agree to disagree. I do not have to agree with all of Knowledge's ideals to abide by them. I still believe that completely removing material
306:
In my opinion, it is both a BLP problem and a case of recentism, one follows the other. As I stated, I believe it properly belongs in the article about his show. It was added there and I never made any case to remove it. But I believe that in the BIOGRAPHY of
Hannity, recentism applies. In case you
585:
Good day. I would like to remind you that you should assume good faith of other editors during content disputes, as the majority of the time everyone wants to improve the project but have different views. The best way to deal with this would be to calmly discuss the content dispute on the relevant
271:
Obviously this edit is fairly inflammatory, but the editor who removed it did not claim it violated BLP. If it had solely violated BLP, then the best thing to do would have been to remove the bias instead of removing all the content as if the event never happened. This is the point I'm trying to
366:
I haven't been confrontational with you. I haven't called you names (like you've done to me). I haven't called you "misguided", ignorant or characterized you in any way. I have been very direct in my responses. Now I'm not sure if you find being direct "confrontational", but if that is the case,
184:
I didn't add any information to Sean
Hannity's page and I never have. I fail to see anything in the BLP policy that applies to what was added by another user about Sean Hannity's statement that he would agree to be waterboarded for charity. Please feel free to point out what applies from BLP.
113:
As far as I can see, this is a new editor - who may not be entirely familiar of the wikiways. As a reasonably new editor who in all good faith fell foul of a policy or two initial, perhaps a lighter approach than a level 4 warning and an immediate assumption of bad faith would be appropriate?
529:
You are a plague upon the Sean
Hannity article, and as such I want you, personally, to never again compromise the sanctity of said article. The reason my arbitration request was not accepted was not that my concerns were invalid but that wikipedia's policies dictate that I must follow a long,
345:
I didn't say that BLP mentions recentism. But it does address about giving undue weight to relatively trivial events (which this was), generally contentious information and news spikes (which is all this was, a news spike for a couple of days, then poof, it was gone). You engaged in a flat out
117:
Stargnoc, if you have strong opinions on a subject focus on debate on the article talk page and only on content. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into personal comments no matter how warranted you may feel it is. Opposing views can be equally valid and it is through debate we hope to obtain
480:
and work to improve the article. Whether or not you think it needs improvement, Blaxos was nice enough to go through the trouble of creating it, and
Niteshift36 weighed in, in a very civil and concise fashion. Perhaps this is a new beginning. A return to normalcy, if you
361:
of our policies on neutrality." I would agree that the edit made by another user probably violated this tenet of BLP. You're right. But I'm also right that you exhibited a confrontational tone in your statements, as you continue to do. In summary, you're misguided.
66:
Well, given that you had attacked more than one editor, possibly in the post, with definitely more than one insult, not to mention you were saying what their political motivations were, I lost good faith with you. That level four is for assuming bad faith.—
410:
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.
530:
ineffective path before squelching your "contributions" to an article. It's a problem with wikipedia that users like you, who exist only to obstruct and obfuscate the truth, are favored over those who try to bring truth to articles.
367:
you're going to find a lot of people on here that you believe are "confrontational". I also find it odd that you say you are a new editor, but want to jump in with the name calling and telling me how misguided I am about policies.
229:
that can be viewed as unflattering to a subject is worse than leaving the material there or editing it to contain facts, not attacks (yes, that rhymes). I do not believe intentionally derogatory material should be kept in whole.
285:
However, Hannity's statement on waterboarding is an example of "recentism" and thus should not be present in the Sean
Hannity article at this time. "Recentism" was the reason given for removing it in the first place, not
339:
I'm already well aware of the application of recentism. Nowhere does BLP mention recentism. I'm sensing a confrontational tone on your part again and I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so how's about we be done with
498:
Until
Niteshift36 is restricted from editing the article very little progress will be made. However, Knowledge is very ineffective at restricting disruptive editing when it's supported by the moderators.
200:
To censor articles by REMOVING items that could be perceived as unflattering to the subject is more damaging to the goals of
Knowledge than ADDING "negative," truthful information in the first place.
141:
I agree that it was inappropriate of me to refer to the user as a liar and a hypocrite; I am indeed a new user and haven't had much experience in the talk section. I'll try to behave! Thanks.
346:
personal attack, calling me a liar and a hypocrite, yet worry about a "confrontational tone" you "sense"? Sorry if that strikes me as a bit strange sounding.
445:
Clarification: If at some point the obstacles in the way of successfully editing the article are removed I may consider coming back to the article, sure.
607:
123:
255:
The specific statement that was added to the article, however, does appear to violate the "criticism and praise" section of the BLP:
220:
175:
99:
77:
57:
430:
You claim you're leaving the article and that , but take the extensive amount of time needed to file that request. Whatever man.
407:
618:
36:
317:, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of a topic that has received recent media attention.
563:
165:, for what the goals of WP are. Simply, you are not to add material such as what you are adding per our BLP policy.—
242:
Specifically, I don't view all information regarding the statement Sean Hannity made as necessarily "inflammatory."
44:
608:
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/95800/Video_Sean_Hannity_says_Charles_Grodin_can_waterboard_him_part_1
486:
476:
Haven't really been checking in lately, but rather than get all personal with each other, why don't we go
131:
571:
552:
520:
466:
435:
372:
351:
329:
217:
172:
96:
74:
54:
210:. That is hardly true, as, as said, it is against BLP policy to add inflammatory material to a BLP.—
503:
397:
562:
Hello, Stargnoc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
393:
477:
482:
416:
127:
85:
Despite whatever reasons you may have, calling someone a liar and hypocrite are not allowed,
619:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
591:
567:
548:
516:
462:
431:
368:
347:
325:
212:
167:
91:
69:
49:
499:
110:
89:. It doesn't matter if he actually is lying, you are not allowed to call names here.—
531:
446:
287:
201:
186:
162:
142:
412:
319:
Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens
119:
313:"Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to
629:
199:
587:
404:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
25:
307:
haven't bothered to read that one, here are a couple of passages I feel apply:
47:
for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —
566:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
388:
406:
595:
581:
Please assume good faith of other editors, and avoid personal attacks.
575:
556:
539:
524:
507:
490:
470:
454:
439:
420:
376:
355:
333:
295:
223:
194:
178:
150:
135:
102:
80:
60:
401:
396:
and Knowledge pages that have open discussion, you should
392:
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
461:
In any case, you skipped some steps in the DR process.
33:you will receive for your disruptive comments.
630:http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=406256
8:
515:of your campaign against me personally.
600:
7:
124:Knowledge:Editor assistance/Requests
185:Recentism is applicable, of course.
14:
405:
387:
315:long-term historical perspective
24:
1:
596:14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
576:13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
557:13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
540:03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
525:18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
508:05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
491:09:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
471:11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
455:10:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
440:08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
421:05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
564:Knowledge:Wikiquette alerts
648:
208:) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
118:concensus. YOu may find
35:The next time you make a
535:
450:
377:00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
356:02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
334:13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
296:02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
291:
224:01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
195:01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
190:
179:01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
151:00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
146:
136:21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
103:19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
81:06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
61:05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
161:I suggest you read
157:Goals of Knowledge
120:dispute resolution
383:Your recent edits
639:
632:
627:
621:
616:
610:
605:
409:
391:
215:
209:
170:
94:
72:
52:
28:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
637:
636:
635:
628:
624:
617:
613:
606:
602:
583:
428:
400:by typing four
398:sign your posts
385:
213:
168:
159:
92:
70:
50:
37:personal attack
22:
12:
11:
5:
645:
643:
634:
633:
622:
611:
599:
582:
579:
560:
559:
544:
543:
542:
512:
511:
510:
474:
473:
458:
457:
427:
424:
384:
381:
380:
379:
364:
363:
362:
342:
341:
323:
322:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
158:
155:
154:
153:
108:
107:
106:
105:
34:
21:
18:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
644:
631:
626:
623:
620:
615:
612:
609:
604:
601:
598:
597:
593:
589:
580:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
558:
554:
550:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
479:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
425:
423:
422:
418:
414:
408:
403:
399:
395:
390:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
320:
316:
305:
304:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
227:
226:
225:
222:
221:
219:
216:
207:
203:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
176:
174:
171:
164:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
115:
112:
104:
101:
100:
98:
95:
88:
84:
83:
82:
79:
78:
76:
73:
65:
64:
63:
62:
59:
58:
56:
53:
46:
42:
38:
32:
27:
19:
17:
625:
614:
603:
584:
561:
483:FuriousJorge
475:
429:
386:
318:
314:
312:
262:
211:
205:
166:
160:
128:Amicaveritas
116:
109:
90:
86:
68:
48:
40:
31:only warning
30:
29:This is the
23:
15:
568:Niteshift36
549:Niteshift36
517:Niteshift36
463:Niteshift36
432:Niteshift36
369:Niteshift36
348:Niteshift36
326:Niteshift36
500:Jayhammers
394:talk pages
122:& to
532:Stargnoc
447:Stargnoc
288:Stargnoc
202:Stargnoc
187:Stargnoc
143:Stargnoc
126:of use.
20:May 2009
426:Amazing
413:SineBot
111:WP:BITE
45:blocked
588:Taelus
547:above.
402:tildes
286:"BLP".
163:WP:BLP
87:period
39:, you
481:will.
272:make.
218:dαlus
173:dαlus
97:dαlus
75:dαlus
55:dαlus
592:talk
572:talk
553:talk
536:talk
521:talk
504:talk
487:talk
478:here
467:talk
451:talk
436:talk
417:talk
373:talk
352:talk
330:talk
321:..."
292:talk
206:talk
191:talk
147:talk
132:talk
41:will
340:it?
43:be
594:)
574:)
555:)
538:)
523:)
506:)
489:)
469:)
453:)
438:)
419:)
411:--
375:)
354:)
332:)
294:)
214:Dæ
193:)
169:Dæ
149:)
134:)
93:Dæ
71:Dæ
51:Dæ
590:(
570:(
551:(
534:(
519:(
502:(
485:(
465:(
449:(
434:(
415:(
371:(
350:(
328:(
290:(
204:(
189:(
145:(
130:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
