As someone who is also peeved by the use of weasel words at WP, may I suggest adding a Template:Who or who? tag to weasel words instead of simply deleting the text. If the tag isn't removed by a cite quickly, then delete with explanation. Deleting info simply because it contains weasel words will more often than not lead to edit wars and will not be looked upon kindly by other users. Ramsquire 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
You only have one left. Here are the reverts you've made here, here, and here. Ramsquire 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilot Talk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The RfC is malformed because you have not followed the procedures to set up a proper RfC, like listing it on the RfC page. But that is ok. I think the comment I left sums up my position on both the wording and your RfC. If you want to move it to another section, you have my permission. Ramsquire 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
from a cursory look, i get the impression that you might be being too bold in your editing. wikipedia is a slow process. i'd try to get some input from the others. wait a bit longer for more views before making a change that may invoke controversy. then if no one speaks up after a reasonable time period, well, IMO, they have no right to cry foul. i'd focus on trying to get them to participate in working together on a better version, but perhaps not with so much urgency to produce it as you may be inclined. Kevin Baas talk 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
“ | Thank you for your comment. I'll admit I may be being hard-headed in (what I believe) is a defense of WP:NPOV, but I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks and accusations ever since the other editors declared that consensus had been reached. | ” |
— Cbuhl79 |
The preceeding was found left on Kevin's talk page by Cbuhl79. I think this is just a continued example of how Cbuhl abuses the good faith issued to him.
To Cbuhl79:
I would like you to demonstrate where any one of us has issued any sort of personal attack against you. Please give us examples of how we've "attacked and accused" you.
/ Blaxthos 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
THERE IS NO NPOV VIOLATION BECAUSE NO ONE IS ASSERTING ANY FACT OR OPINION. The intro is not saying Fox is or is not conservative. The consensus version only summarizes that some (too numerous and diverse to name specifically in the intro) view Fox as conservative, it is letting the reader know of a perception, not of any fact. Your new NPOV argument was discussed previously for almost a week. Just because you didn't or won't read the archives, and seek to re-introduce an argument already made, doesn't mean no one discussed it. Please read the archives. Ramsquire 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV
“ | When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. | ” |
Cbuhl79 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, from WP:CONSENSUS
“ | It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. | ” |
Sorry Ramsquire, I should clarify why I included that last quote, on re-reading it, I realized it sounds like an attack on your motivation. I do NOT believe that you personally have been actively seeking to promote your POV, or that you are anything but simply frustrated that I am refusing to accept the consensus. Your comments have consistently shown that you genuinely believe the intro is NPOV as it is, and that I am simply being difficult. However, since I still feel that there is a NPOV violation, I feel that the quote above justifies continuing to argue the point. Cbuhl79 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that I made 7 total reverts and 3 content related edits pertaining to this issue over a 16 day period. Also note that I during this time I made over 40 edits to this specific talk page discussing this issue.
Please do not edit this section. I have added it for my own reference. Feel free to add comments in new sections. Cbuhl79 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT misstate my position. My post was only to clear up that I was NOT ASSERTING (at that time) that consensus had been reached. In other words, I would not speak for other editors. After my edit, the other editors from both sides agreed that consensus had been reached, I agreed. I was leaning in that direction when I wrote that but didn't want to speak out of turn. Real good way to respond to good faith, by taking my edits out of context, nice. Ramsquire 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
“ | The user Ramsquire has consistently strongly agreed with the other editors that consensus has been reached, and that the consensus is correct. | ” |
Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:SIG and sign your posts to talk pages. / Blaxthos 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see [16] [17] [18] I sometimes forget to sign my comments, but not intentionally. Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries, Cbuhl, I don't consider myself an involved party. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Cbuhl, in a last ditch effort to restore some good faith, I respectfully request that you withdraw your request for arbitration under WP:SNOW. There is almost no chance this will be heard. Please accept consensus is not with you at this time, and move on from this issue. Don't let your reputation here at Wiki die on one article. Please do the right thing. Ramsquire 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As for your reputation, you've harmed it more by your repeated insistence on posting the same thing over and over again, than if you had simply said "I disagree with the consensus", and moved on. That being said, consensus can change, so keep on editing and maybe at some point, consensus will change. But for now, just keep looking for weasel words as you see them, place {{ Who}} tags on them and listen to other editors responses. Ramsquire (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.
In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken.
It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
— WP:NPOV
Some specific exceptions that may need calling out: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption...
— WP:POINT
If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. The clause is designed to prevent editors from using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.
— WP:SNOW
The snowball test: If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
— WP:SNOW
You applied a WP:NPA template to my userspace, and then to my talkspace, accusing me of personal attacks.
I believe this was in bad faith, and motivated by spite -- you're mad that your RfC's turned out in a manner you don't agree with, and your RfArb was summarily rejected.
I will initiate a request for arbitration regarding your conduct. Please be prepared to explain why you applied this template. / Blaxthos 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section or get all the weasel words out of it, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. Jsn9333 ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As someone who is also peeved by the use of weasel words at WP, may I suggest adding a Template:Who or who? tag to weasel words instead of simply deleting the text. If the tag isn't removed by a cite quickly, then delete with explanation. Deleting info simply because it contains weasel words will more often than not lead to edit wars and will not be looked upon kindly by other users. Ramsquire 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
You only have one left. Here are the reverts you've made here, here, and here. Ramsquire 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilot Talk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The RfC is malformed because you have not followed the procedures to set up a proper RfC, like listing it on the RfC page. But that is ok. I think the comment I left sums up my position on both the wording and your RfC. If you want to move it to another section, you have my permission. Ramsquire 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
from a cursory look, i get the impression that you might be being too bold in your editing. wikipedia is a slow process. i'd try to get some input from the others. wait a bit longer for more views before making a change that may invoke controversy. then if no one speaks up after a reasonable time period, well, IMO, they have no right to cry foul. i'd focus on trying to get them to participate in working together on a better version, but perhaps not with so much urgency to produce it as you may be inclined. Kevin Baas talk 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
“ | Thank you for your comment. I'll admit I may be being hard-headed in (what I believe) is a defense of WP:NPOV, but I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks and accusations ever since the other editors declared that consensus had been reached. | ” |
— Cbuhl79 |
The preceeding was found left on Kevin's talk page by Cbuhl79. I think this is just a continued example of how Cbuhl abuses the good faith issued to him.
To Cbuhl79:
I would like you to demonstrate where any one of us has issued any sort of personal attack against you. Please give us examples of how we've "attacked and accused" you.
/ Blaxthos 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
THERE IS NO NPOV VIOLATION BECAUSE NO ONE IS ASSERTING ANY FACT OR OPINION. The intro is not saying Fox is or is not conservative. The consensus version only summarizes that some (too numerous and diverse to name specifically in the intro) view Fox as conservative, it is letting the reader know of a perception, not of any fact. Your new NPOV argument was discussed previously for almost a week. Just because you didn't or won't read the archives, and seek to re-introduce an argument already made, doesn't mean no one discussed it. Please read the archives. Ramsquire 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV
“ | When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. | ” |
Cbuhl79 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, from WP:CONSENSUS
“ | It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. | ” |
Sorry Ramsquire, I should clarify why I included that last quote, on re-reading it, I realized it sounds like an attack on your motivation. I do NOT believe that you personally have been actively seeking to promote your POV, or that you are anything but simply frustrated that I am refusing to accept the consensus. Your comments have consistently shown that you genuinely believe the intro is NPOV as it is, and that I am simply being difficult. However, since I still feel that there is a NPOV violation, I feel that the quote above justifies continuing to argue the point. Cbuhl79 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that I made 7 total reverts and 3 content related edits pertaining to this issue over a 16 day period. Also note that I during this time I made over 40 edits to this specific talk page discussing this issue.
Please do not edit this section. I have added it for my own reference. Feel free to add comments in new sections. Cbuhl79 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT misstate my position. My post was only to clear up that I was NOT ASSERTING (at that time) that consensus had been reached. In other words, I would not speak for other editors. After my edit, the other editors from both sides agreed that consensus had been reached, I agreed. I was leaning in that direction when I wrote that but didn't want to speak out of turn. Real good way to respond to good faith, by taking my edits out of context, nice. Ramsquire 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
“ | The user Ramsquire has consistently strongly agreed with the other editors that consensus has been reached, and that the consensus is correct. | ” |
Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:SIG and sign your posts to talk pages. / Blaxthos 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see [16] [17] [18] I sometimes forget to sign my comments, but not intentionally. Cbuhl79 02:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries, Cbuhl, I don't consider myself an involved party. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Cbuhl, in a last ditch effort to restore some good faith, I respectfully request that you withdraw your request for arbitration under WP:SNOW. There is almost no chance this will be heard. Please accept consensus is not with you at this time, and move on from this issue. Don't let your reputation here at Wiki die on one article. Please do the right thing. Ramsquire 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As for your reputation, you've harmed it more by your repeated insistence on posting the same thing over and over again, than if you had simply said "I disagree with the consensus", and moved on. That being said, consensus can change, so keep on editing and maybe at some point, consensus will change. But for now, just keep looking for weasel words as you see them, place {{ Who}} tags on them and listen to other editors responses. Ramsquire (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.
In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken.
It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
— WP:NPOV
Some specific exceptions that may need calling out: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption...
— WP:POINT
If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. The clause is designed to prevent editors from using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.
— WP:SNOW
The snowball test: If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
— WP:SNOW
You applied a WP:NPA template to my userspace, and then to my talkspace, accusing me of personal attacks.
I believe this was in bad faith, and motivated by spite -- you're mad that your RfC's turned out in a manner you don't agree with, and your RfArb was summarily rejected.
I will initiate a request for arbitration regarding your conduct. Please be prepared to explain why you applied this template. / Blaxthos 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I agreed with your comment in the Fox News entry about the inclusion of criticisms in the lead. While I don't think it is possible to build a consensus to get the info moved down into a separate section or get all the weasel words out of it, I am currently building a consensus to at least have the "other side's" POV (critics that think Fox is relatively balanced) included with the current POV included in the lead to make the lead less one sided. I am not a fan of Fox News or of any particular media outlet, but the lead strikes me as very one-sided, and wikipedia should not be like that. If you want to, you can now go to the Fox News entry's talk page and "cast your vote" in the Request For Comment at the bottom of the page. It seems like the numbers are starting to favor the more balanced version of the lead I have proposed. Jsn9333 ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)