| Revision as of 11:37, 29 June 2013 editOrangesRyellow (talk | contribs)2,284 edits →Some advice on getting your content included← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:39, 29 June 2013 edit undoOrangesRyellow (talk | contribs)2,284 editsm →Some advice on getting your content included: typoNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| Please regard this note as a friendly warning to change your approach. If you do, then I have no doubt your knowledge can make a significant contribution. If you don't, then I can confidently predict a glorious but short career. Please post here if you want to respond, and don't forget to sign by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your post, to produce a signature. ] ] 10:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | Please regard this note as a friendly warning to change your approach. If you do, then I have no doubt your knowledge can make a significant contribution. If you don't, then I can confidently predict a glorious but short career. Please post here if you want to respond, and don't forget to sign by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your post, to produce a signature. ] ] 10:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *Hi IP. I think you are still puzzled why so many people are opposing your edit. I shall try to explain things a bit (other people may have a different take on this). Please see ]. It is part of a core policy for Misplaced Pages and all eds are expected to adhere by it. It says, ''"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."'' I read it to mean that if x$ forms |
*Hi IP. I think you are still puzzled why so many people are opposing your edit. I shall try to explain things a bit (other people may have a different take on this). Please see ]. It is part of a core policy for Misplaced Pages and all eds are expected to adhere by it. It says, ''"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."'' I read it to mean that if x$ forms a minuscule part of the total literature on a subject, it does not get included in the article. I hope you can agree that tanning industry propaganda, no matter how right/wrong it may be, only forms a minuscule part of the total literature on "Propaganda". I hope you can now see why it is unsuitable in the article on "Propaganda". As others have said, the same material may be suitable for some other article, but not this one. Does this help?] (]) 11:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:39, 29 June 2013
Reporting behavior
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#attack_on_tanning_industry_propaganda_turns_into_personal_attack_on_editors Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
don't use the encyclopedia to vent your spleen
Your problem is that you are only interested in attacking or exposing the tanning industry but are writing about it in the article on Propaganda. You seem to have little interest in the scholarship on propaganda, but are just using a platform-- indeed seizing control of a huge amount of space in the Propaganda article to vent your anger and frustration. Misplaced Pages does not allow that. Use your Facebook page. Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's breakdown my argument as to why you are wrong on many levels.
"Your problem is that you are only interested in attacking or exposing the tanning industry but are writing about it in the article on Propaganda. You seem to have little interest in the scholarship on propaganda"
Your problem is that you are ironically making false assertions about my scholarly role. I have much interest in scholarship on propaganda. Thank you for being a hypocrite, by the way, because I am citing this as well as evidence of bad behaviour. It is your POV that I "seem to have little interest in the scholarship on propaganda" - who are you to make such a wild assertion? Is that not an attack? Who are you to tell me what I "seem" to be doing? I have written in the rationale for my edits that I have a strong basis for adding this, as the article on propaganda is, in my opinion, too narrow - it only seems to include information about the use for propaganda as a basis for discrimination. Use of propaganda to promote unhealthy products and erode trust in the health care system is worth including, because of its potential severe repercussions and because it is a more modern version of propaganda.
"are just using a platform-- indeed seizing control of a huge amount of space in the Propaganda article" I did remove many characters to try and shorten it. I would not call it seizing control, as I have no desire to change any of the other content, nor change the meaning of the term. That is, again, what many would call a unfounded assertion that lacks any credible evidence. Have I written somewhere that this is my goal? The term huge is opionated.
"to vent your anger and frustration" My only anger and frustration came when someone like you suddenly thinks that this is an opinion piece to vent my anger and frustration. I have researched the harms of indoor tanning, looked at the issue objectively, and drawn the same conclusions as the World Health Organization and Canadian Pediatric Society (the latter of which was quoted in the article contribution). These are facts, that I was emphasizing to expand the discussion around propaganda and inform the readers of[REDACTED] about an unique source of propaganda being utilized by modern industry through social and other media.
Now can you see why I think you are being ignorant? You have made many accusations about me in the last few hours, and have not presented one piece of information to back it up. That, Rjensen, is called a POINT OF VIEW, and when it is presented in such an emotional fashion it comes off to me as arrogant and ignorant. Maybe you should re-assess the differences between facts and opinions, because you are the one who seemingly has blurred the lines between the two.
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please do not re-format or re-word other's posts. GiantSnowman 08:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I was only trying to help Rjensen out but he can look like a hypocrite all he/she wants. Such inflammatory language
Some advice on getting your content included
Hello there, I understand your frustrations at having lengthy content removed from articles, but this kind of response from you is not the way to go to win folks round. Nor are your responses atWP:ANI. I completely understand that fromyour point of view you are entering factual, referenced, encyclopaedic material. The problem for you is that you have to bring your fellow editors along with you and if they are unconvinced, insults and anger are not going to bring them round. However right or well qualified you are, in the Misplaced Pages universe you are just one atom and at present all we know of you is an anonymous IP number and a bad-tempered start to your editing career.
WP works by WP:CONSENSUS, which means that you have to convince fellow editors that your edits are sound - especially if they take an article off on a new tack. Your edits to Propaganda, while well referenced, had as far as I can see no references explicitly describing the tanning industry's work as propaganda. The edits really belong somewhere in the Sun tanning article, and at less length. WP is a complex social organism and its written rules are lengthy, its unwritten social conventions even harder to unpick! But it is fundamentally like every other social structure; you will make progress in direct proportion to the number of people you can win over (and in inverse proportion to the number you piss off.)
Please regard this note as a friendly warning to change your approach. If you do, then I have no doubt your knowledge can make a significant contribution. If you don't, then I can confidently predict a glorious but short career. Please post here if you want to respond, and don't forget to sign by typing ~~~~ after your post, to produce a signature. Kim Dent-Brown 10:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi IP. I think you are still puzzled why so many people are opposing your edit. I shall try to explain things a bit (other people may have a different take on this). Please see WP:DUE. It is part of a core policy for Misplaced Pages and all eds are expected to adhere by it. It says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." I read it to mean that if x$ forms a minuscule part of the total literature on a subject, it does not get included in the article. I hope you can agree that tanning industry propaganda, no matter how right/wrong it may be, only forms a minuscule part of the total literature on "Propaganda". I hope you can now see why it is unsuitable in the article on "Propaganda". As others have said, the same material may be suitable for some other article, but not this one. Does this help?OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)