User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2023/June

RWP

The first three words in the title are literally RWP. Your "wild turkey" comparison is unwarranted. Please stop with these condescending nonsensical criticisms. DN (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how including the observations in these sources meets the requirement of Balancing aspects? TFD (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Your opinions on the authors are fine, but the comparison you made is, for lack of a better term, False equivalence...The source I used is, upon first glance, peer reviewed and on topic. Your "wild turkey" reference is off-topic and seemingly a bit patronizing. If you want me to acknowledge your comments on an article talk-page discussion, try to avoid pontificating off-the-cuff analogies, as you may have done there. DN (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that you have many editors coming to you with issues regarding interactions. It may be time for you to take stock and consider whether it is time for some changes with your behavior. DN (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how including the observations in these sources meets the requirement of Balancing aspects? TFD (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you first registered, I objected to your username as obscene, but the administrator turned down my request to block you and suggested I write to you directly. Why do you have that name? TFD (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You may ask for more rope and another shovel, but that's not why I am here. I know that you are more intelligent and insightful than this. DN (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as addressing whether the cite I provided may or may not meet the requirement of Balancing aspects, I believe that is a matter for the article talk-page, not for just us to determine, as it should reflect consensus. The only reason I came here was to express my request for a more civil discourse from you. Nothing more. DN (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

KKK

I'm very tired of these lectures about WP:WEIGHT when it is completely without merit and inappropriately assumes that I don't understand it. Please stop. If you don't mean it as such then I would appreciate it if you would strike that portion. DN (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with me over my interpretation of policy and guidelines or if you reject them altogether, its a content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page or an appropriate content forum.

I am often annoyed that some editors provide objections by referring to a policy, guideline or even an essay. without explaining what part of it applies and how it applies. Editors will say for example, "I object to that per WP:CRYSTALBALL." I suspect some editors may not have read past the titles.

It's also important, since other editors may join the discussion, to explain to them how a policy or guideline relates to an edit. TFD (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am disagreeing with your behavior towards me there, as I did with your "wild turkey" response at RWP, because it tends to come across as a form of Condescension. The reason why I'm here is because I'm trying to develop some mutual respect, and find a way for us recognize each other's boundaries. One of those boundaries must be that we don't condescend to one another, and that we communicate when we feel that line getting crossed. If you did not mean it that way, I am politely asking for you to strike it. I can't make it much clearer than that right now. The choice is yours. DN (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You should not take content disputes as personal attacks. And if I explain my reasoning for a dispute, it is important that other editors are aware of the reasons. I noticed btw your comment "That's not how WP:WEIGHT works, and I think you know that..." Yet you never explain how your suggested edits meet the criteria of the policy. It would be as if a prosecutor objected to a defense based on the Bill of Rights by saying "That's not how the Bill of Rights works, and I think you know that."

I might consider your linking of the term condescension to be passive aggression. You know that my vocabulary is sufficiently advanced to be aware of the term. What is the purpose of the link?

D.C. Stephenson controlled many state Klan organizations at a time when it had three million members and it was able top deadlock the Democratic National Convention and hoped to win the nomination and possibly the presidency the next time round. Stephenson controlled the Republican Party machine in Indiana and through it the governor's mansion, the legislature and many judges and other state officials. He is credited with recruiting as many as 500,000 members into the Illinois Klan.

David Duke was able to build his Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to a membership of 1,500 before it went into decline and he left. His infamy largely derives from his activities after he left the KKKK.

So I would say that Stephenson was more famous and of course his trial was extensively covered in major media. TFD (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about a content dispute, it's your demeanor towards myself and likely other editors, that's why I'm here. I couldn't be any clearer. I'm not asking for an apology, just some mutual respect.

I will strike my link since you mentioned it. I'm not saying I am innocent of any trespasses or uncivil comments myself, in fact, quite the opposite. I'm willing to accept and admit that I make mistakes. I've committed to work on my communication for the sake of this community. I do that by listening to others and respecting boundaries. All I asked for here is some reciprocity in that regard, but it seems like that is not going to happen. DN (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] Clearly, I wasn't asking you, and I would appreciate it if you would at least give other editors a chance to speak for themselves. DN (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Content discussions are open to everyone. The prior discussion anyway addressed why the text was off topic. You said your edits meet Due and undue weight, but don't refer to any section that is relevant. In any case, the policy is about the presentation of opinions, which doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. TFD (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I do find it extremely odd that all 3 highly experienced editors there are trying to remove relative material about David Duke from an article about the KKK. It puts me in a very awkward position of either wasting my time listing all the RS just to keep what little there is about him in the article, proposing an RfC etc. or just walking away to let this article languish in mediocrity, as it has been for years. Is that the point here? DN (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you think that edit 1 is relevant because Duke was a a prominent Klan leader whose current activities on the far right are extensively covered in reliable sources. Furthermore, both the Klan and Duke are major players in the far right. If so, no one challenges your facts and therefore there is no need to reiterate or support them.

In my opinion, the objection is that other editors do not believe this is a policy based reason to include the edit. Of course we could have all missed something, but if you want to persuade other editors you need to cite passage and verse (or just copy the relevant sentence(s)) from policy or guidelines.

So far you have just referenced a policy, "Due and undue weight," not explaining what section of it applied. TFD (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to change the subject but I was going over the KKK talk page archives, and in the discussion titled Terrorist, I was overly harsh towards you [2]. I wanted to strike some of those comments, but since it's archived I don't think that's possible now. The best I can offer is a sincere and humble apology. There's not an excuse for my tone, so all I can offer is to learn from that mistake and work on myself. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that. TFD (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)