User talk:Duckboki

October 2015

Hello, I'm Fluffernutter. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to User:Rklawton‎ have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain... sounds like censorship to me. Duckboki (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, discuss others' edits, not the editors. Making claims about other editors without evidence, particularly when you effectively accuse them of misconduct on Wikipedia, is considered a personal attack and is not appropriate. See also WP:Outing. Huon (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? There seems to be a double standard here. The political operative in question here made edits that themselves lacked any substantiation, unless the National Enquirer and its complementary publications count as references on Wikipedia.

Are you saying the National Post and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation resemble the National Enquirer when it comes to editorial standards? I rather don't think so. Wikipedia generally considers newspapers and reputable news organizations whose publications are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy reliable. The National Post and CBC clearly meet that standard. If Rklawton cited the National Enquirer somewhere, please point out where he did so. Please also provide evidence for the claim that he's a "political operative" or retract that statement.

By the way, adding evidence is important for edits to articles, too. Please cite reliable sources when you add or modify content so our readers can verify that the information is correct. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes for your sources. Huon (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that CBC and the National Post refused to touch the story for several weeks despite knowing about it. They ultimately never did actually report it, they reported that Buzz Feed, which is overwhelmingly viewed as illegitimate as a news source, reported it. Citing another fake news source is just that, nothing more. So with respect to this "story" I am saying at CBC and the National Post have tabloidesque editorial standards, yes. While CBC is my primary news source, I am also quick to accept that they are overtly biased and lack neutrality. All media companies are like that, but the CBC, again my favourite news source in general terms, is especially disengenuous in feigning objective reporting. You seem to think you can argue otherwise, but no reasonable person, however liberal, would agree. Either you know nothing about how news is created, or you simply like to argue.

If you want to claim that the National Post and CBC are not reliable sources for the information they're cited for, try WP:RSN. Huon (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CBC and the National Post are reliable; they reliably quoted a gossip tabloid website. That raises questions about their own reporting ability when they have to go to BuzzFeed as a source for their own stories. I'm not sure any major Canadian news outlet is any better. Whatever sells, right? It's never fundamentally about telling the truth or about reporting what is actually important.

I'm concerned that Flutternutter, RkLawton and Huon are one and the same person. How can I be assured they are not? I'm learning more about the reliability of Wikipedia every day.

So you agree that reliable sources found the incident significant enough to cover it, correctly reporting the allegations. The Wikipedia article again correctly summarizes what those reliable sources report. The idea that Fluffernutter, Rklawton and me are one and the same is ridiculous. A quick look at our contributions will show that we have entirely disparate interests. If you want to be publicly laughed at you're welcome to make your case at WP:SPI. Huon (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I'm much more handsome. Rklawton (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duckboki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Duckboki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]