Misplaced Pages

efforts (stalled) to make SSCS-Talk page archives more useful..

in re cholo

Indeed. Cholo is one of those words that no English translation can adequately capture. It may not be the equivalent of the "n-word", but it is also almost universily used derogatively... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

i disagree with your characterization of it. from my experience in mexico i still maintain that it can be used without derogatory connotation, among friends. Something like vagabundo -PrBeacon

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		… In recognition of your recent efforts at cooperation and content creation. — NRen2k5 aka TheHerbalGerbil , 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After some time passes & even though we exchange light jabs occasionally, I consider returning the favor... -PrBeacon (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sea Shepherds and Violence

Just wanted to say thank you for the repsecful tone that seems to be settling on the community in the discussion at the moment. It makes a nice environment for cooperative work, you make that article a better place. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You may think differently after you read more of my replies to the anti-SSCS POV-pusher there, but I appreciate the comment. PrBeacon (talk)

I might regret this but get in here. Started poking around more recently and think your counterbalance would be beneficial to the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've removed NRen2k5's self-righteous warning from here. I also posted the following reply at his Talk page: "When you can heed your own advice about not personalizing disputes and distorting the truth, I'll stop countering your pro-whaling arguments. Until then, keep your hypocritical warnings to yourself." PrBeacon (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey.. it looks an aweful lot like you are egging Nren on in the discussion of SSCS. I know the two of you have history.. it's probably best if you don't spend effort discussing him in that page. Making suggestions of edits would be cool but it seems like you are commenting about the person which he seems to be taking offense to.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps thats one way of looking at it, but as long as he pushes his anti-SSCS POV there, I'll continue to reply. I think the discussion about balance in particular is well worth it. Incidentally, I must say your assessment seems injudicious in light of your own testy exchange with the anon-editor#4 allegedly from San Jose. PrBeacon (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem being disagreed with. :) I welcome it, it's good for us. San Jose though was just flat out rude, I tried not to be rude back. Look at CPTnono, obviously sympathetic to the SS but I've got nothing but praise for the way that editor handles business. If we disagree it's all good. Anyway, thanks for scaling back a bit, we all have folks that get under our skin. Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I am pretty sure we can find solutions on the range of articles. I have and will continue to disagree with you but me getting the page locked sucks. And there is no winning and I am not always right so there is nothing wrong with working to find some consensus on this stuff.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Against POV push

For the record, User:Cetamata is misrepresenting the situation and bypassing the normal channels of dispute resolution. This is how I and others see it: over the past several months he has repeatedly changed the article to suit his pro-whaling POV, including the euphemisms "take" and "catch" as well as bogus research claims, while ignoring disagreements about these terms on the talk page and paying lip service to WP policies. Most recently, after I changed the terms back, he reverted my edits. So I warned him about 3RR which he mistakenly thought was a formal report, yet he deleted it. He then retaliated at the Admin noticeboard. Instead of attempting to reach a resolution, he seems to be digging in & making things worse. . PrBeacon (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments removed, references to escalated dispute.

We can play this game if you really want. Calling you a jerk was grossly inappropriate. However, you are guilty to a certain extent as well and ignored that on the user's talk page and mine. WP:AOBF is part of a guideline. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" is considered directly rude per the policy Misplaced Pages:Civility. Stop accusing someone of POV pushing. This is devolving into a lame pissing contest. You asked where my objectivity has gone and I am thinking the same of you. I hope it is just a knee-jerk reaction on my art. I am sure we can get back to not being rude to each other with a little bit of effort.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've conceded as much on his talk page and yours, just before he made the remark. But I never called him any names. Those quotes from wp:npa seem to support my view that I can indeed question an editor's contributions with some latitude, including POV issues. And you know from my exchanges that I'm civil until provoked, especially with NRen2k5 last year: I give what I get. If an editor wants to push the argument instead of reach common ground, I'm willing to return the flavor. Not the best response in an ideal community, but I don't back down from bullies. As I see the escalation: we discussed, he reverted, we argued, he reported, we argued, he insulted. And yes Cetamata seems to enjoy arguing, despite his claims to the contrary. PrBeacon (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this happened: -- fed up with the "sh!t" i guess

Or the timing of this & -- self-righteous blowhard wiki-bully trying to bait another argument.

Further (biased) comments removed.

We just disagree. At least we can agree on that. But you keep saying now that I'm being uncivil: Where? (I dont count my own user-talkpage, since anyone who's likely to be offended is free to stay away) .. I may have posted some sharp rebukes but still in a diplomatic vein, and only after repeatedly provoked. And who else is saying that I'm being uncivil, aside from editors embroiled in the conflicts? By the way, you're doing a bit of the deflecting, as well. It seems like you didnt even read my reply above ("Yep, I've conceded as much..") & only reacted to the remark about the blowhard bully from before. You don't think it's strange he shows up here to effectivly wag his finger, say tsk,tsk and then jump in the middle of Cetamata's crusade? PrBeacon (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: the 3RR report on Fishing has been withdrawn.

Reverts

They were against MoS. Not going to get in an edit war over it but will certainly remove it if I see it pop up on my watchlist. And don't force balance. Try to find a way to include the info while staying withing the style guidelines. Also, your 3rr was reopened by the other editor.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just added a couple further templates. To be honest, I don't mind a few reverts if it is in an attempt to make an acceptable product. The problem is when it is controversial and there is obvious concerns on the talk page. But watch out. You are on a real slippery slope right now. I promise to not try to "get you" or anything. If you act like you were the other night that might change but hopefully we can all get a better rapport. Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

After some time to reflect, there remains a bitter residue. I still think you overstated my part in the conflicts -- worse, you admonished me (repeatedly, on several admin boards) for being uncivil yet you gave praise to Cetamata about keeping his cool & then only reprimanded him reluctantly. (Notice he never actually apologized to me). My calling someone's POV into question is a legitimate form of debate, whether you like it or not. Odd how neither of you replied to the observation about how Cetamata's 3RR report "looks like an attempt to weaken one side through a block." Then you contribute to the escalation with unbalanced & incorrect summary on the WP:POVN. And lastly, you stepped into a separate admin thread, gave false context against me and called for "a reminder that this behavior is not cool." (Which no one else thought necessary). Did you actually read Epipelagic's nasty comments on the Fishing talkpage? Arrogant, dismissive, patronizing. No I'm no saint but I don't get rude so easily, either. PrBeacon (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

more on SSCS talk

That works nicely. We can do it the other way around if you want. I'm rather new to Wiki, still don't know what works without surprising (oh, no....not that.....undo!, undo!, undo!) results. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ha, no problem. PrBeacon (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heck, I didn't even take a look at what you had done with the archives until now. You must have spent all day on that. Amazing. And Thanks!  :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone I asked said that if the archives weren't done by bot, that would mess up the search (I cringe to think of what that means). I know nothing of this stuff, but will keep asking around. Have a great weekend; :-) Oberonfitch (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on archive searching. Actually I didnt do much work, just copy&paste from the TOCs and made some quick observations. cheers, PrBeacon (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The "open seas" part of that lead sentence seems odd. Perhaps "international waters" would be more accurate? And how would you feel about moving that lead paragraph to the top so it is the first thing that people see, since it is at present somewhat buried? Sorry I've been lax on the article; illness and various other real life things going on. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

whales

Noticed that you were working on a related article, saw this and thought it might be of use. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100311/ap_on_re_us/us_whale_sushi_sting Oberonfitch (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

yikes. but thanks for the link PrBeacon (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my thoughts precisely. I especially liked the "refrigerator in the trunk" aspect. But, so many things to admire and appreciate about the article. Where to begin? Oberonfitch (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_whale_sushi The price you pay for illegal whale carcass is closure. As it should be. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PETA

I haven't looked at PETA for a while, because the fighting got too much. I may take a peek again soon. :) SlimVirgin 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought...

On this edit, you might do a better job of convincing people if you aren't making statements such as belligerent pro-FNC crowd. I would be willing to help write such a statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I don't really believe some of those editors want to listen or reach consensus. And I think it's important to call them out on their ownership issues. PrBeacon (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to them, I was referring to the way it came across to people who haven't read anything and see what looks like personal attack. Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even on further reflection, I still don't see how that's a personal attack. (Note I struck the belligerent part, anyway). I suppose a counter-argument can too easily be taken as a personal slight, but there's no attack about it. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

soapboxing

backhandedly, 'Your choice'

(to understand the context, one might need to see the patronizing replies by Niteshift36 at Talk:Fox News Channel, lack of AGF and other incivility he likes to pretend is reasonable discussion)
We can keep this up or end it now. I'll let you decide. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

heh, that's just a lame way to say that you want me to stop. or else you won't. get a grip on your nerdrage. PrBeacon (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it how you want. I made the offer. You just rejected it. At least nobody can say I didn't try. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone who can read. you didn't try. and guess what: I STOLE YOUR BULLET. oh noes. PrBeacon (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove the whole discussion for all I care. It's in your edit history. I made the offer. If you think there's going to be some apology or something, you're dreaming. I simply offered to end it as it sat. You've rejected that. No longer my problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

wrong again. your lack of self-awareness would be laughable if it weren't so confrontational. You did not make an offer to stop. You asked me to. And you also continue to post on the FNC thread after you said you moved the discussion. PrBeacon (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I said WE. WE means both of us. Not you. Not me. BOTH. I didn't ask you to do anything alone, save asking you to decide if you wanted US to stop this silliness or not. And yes, when you rejected this offer and started discussing it at the FNC article, I resumed responding. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

i rejected your non-offer? funny. but not really. your WE means I stop then you stop. but that means you get the last word. /pity the fool^ PrBeacon (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm giving you the last word at the FNC discussion. Go for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Since there is an active RFC about the FNC article, I'd like to propose that we archive the chunks that are mostly just you and I bickering back and forth so that any incoming editor won't have to sift through all that just to figure out what the issue is. What do you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove my posts to each of the 'sidetracked' subsections with an explanatory note. With some distance I realize how counterproductive the two exercises in debate were. PrBeacon (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I will do the same Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

'Just stop now'

(first posted to Niteshift's talkpage, subsequently removed)
Can you see how arrogant and patronizing your replies are? You seem to be engaging in the same childish taunting at Talk:Fox News that you exhibited three weeks ago. I suggest you step back now and try to gain some self-awareness. Repeating yourself and getting personal does nothing to further the discussion. And just because you are careful to couch your remarks in somewhat diplomatic fashion does not exempt you from WP:civil guidelines. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not getting personal and I haven't done anything that wasn't civil. I'd suggest that you are the one who needs to check yourself. If all you have are unwarranted allegations like these and presumptions of bad faith, do not post futher on my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted? "Don't take it personally that you said something contradictory to facts. I'm sure it was accidental, but no reason to get pissy about it." That's tantamount to calling me a liar, accidental or not. How can you spin it any other way? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

warning

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Talk:Fox News Channel, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not remove another editors post if it isn't vandalism or violating a policy. None of that applied to the post you removed here . Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Final? That implies you warned me already when in fact you didn't. Besides, as I just said in my edit summary, my removal of your old comment there was a legitimate attempt to keep the thread in order (since you have left it there while removing other comments) and you didn't give any indication that you objected until this warning on my talk-page, which is quite ridiculous. And not only because of your hypocrisy. According to your skewed logic, it's ok for you to refactor my comment (subsection title which is/was a part of the comment). -PrBeacon (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that your edit summary's characterization "section titles aren't there for your own little rants" is absurd: it's already an accepted subsection in previous threads there, and you don't get to decide what's appropriate. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop posting your nonsense here. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

+context

14:49, 14 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (→in re Niteshift's fourth attempt to sidetrack discussion: changing another POV title from an editor that just doesn't get it)

03:42, 15 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (→another sidetrack: section titles aren't there for your own little rants)

04:18, 15 June 2010     Niteshift36   Talk:Fox News Channel ‎      (you don't own the page. I DO own my comments. Titles aren't to be used to push your POV. You call it a sidetrack, others call it discussion. 2 editors have changed your POV titles)

and 2 editors have reverted his changes to my titles
i could just let it stand... but I don't. and the universal order expands again

Fox News

It is clear and uncontroversial that Fox has a preponderance of conservative commentators which Murdoch justified as an attempt to balance the "liberal bias" in the media. But claiming that their news coverage has a conservative bias, something they strongly deny, requires high quality sources, not just comments from their competitors. If you want to proceed, you must find these sources which will be in scholarly books and peer reviewed articles about journalism. Google scholar is helpful in finding them. The advantage of these sources is that we could actually say that Fox News is biased (if there is an academic consensus) or that that is the mainstream view of FN. Remember too that you must find a source that states what the consensus or mainstream view is. TFD (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a couple of solid sources and I'll look for the consensus view. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up -- User_talk:Viriditas#Fox_.22News.22_Ch. notes to include here..

Appreciated

Thank you. It is nice to see that I might be getting better at not being a WP:DICK.

Some mention in the lead is more than appropriate. I am surprised you ran into so much resistance. I made a comment at EAR. And if you are watching the new season of Whale Wars, I'm not a fan of Sea Shepherd but that Bethune guy has grown on me.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, despite some of my rambling I never considered you an antagonist. I heard a vietnamese monk the other day talking about stopping others from fighting, how difficult it is when both parties want to continue fighting, and how they will often turn on the peacemaker. Anyway, thanks for reviewing my request. And yea Bethune is quite a character. He may make the otherwise plodding show more watchable. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh tell me about it... got a good shiner playing peacemaker a few months ago.

Don't take the other editor calling it an attack at EAR to personally. It is easy to feel like someone went behind their back to a noticeboard even if that wasn't the intent. When it all comes down to it you do have the sourcing and info. The only think left is finding the appropriate wording and weight.Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

go ahead.."

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there PrBeacon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:PrBeacon. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Corporate reaction in GW article

Hey PR. I just wanted you to know that I support an RfC as you suggested in the Global Warming discussion. Do you still think it's a good idea? Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, most certainly. The current refrain of "this article is about the science" reeks of WP:OWNnership issues and is probably NOT the result of past consensus, if such a thing even exists. I suspect this latter point is true because of the immediate yet unsatisfactory replies by several editors, notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier. However, before I undertake to challenge the staus quo I'd like to do some more research into archives including admin threads and previous RfCs, RfMs etc., so i can't move ahead with this right away. Besides, I'm currently involved in another content dispute on two related articles (FoxNews and MMfA), so my efforts would be naturally divided. And while I would normally encourage you to go ahead with initiating an RfC, I think those regular editors at GW might have a defensive reflex against you because of your recent edits Note- I'm not attempting to judge them or you, just commenting on the possible conflict generated. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier - this is vaguely amusing but you might just possibly want to check your facts first. A browse of http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ might be a start; or you could perhaps try looking at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence; or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/. Any way round: welcome to reality; I hope you like it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, your reality is a skewed virtual one , you realize that right? If your comment a few days ago in Talk:GW was therefore sarcasm or facetiousness, then it's not very clear to the newcomers. See how you can come off as arrogant? I don't know you, you don't know me, so using snarky cliches like "welcome to reality" (even if that's a wink) don't have the effect that you apparently want or mean. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You need to start by stating clearly whether you still affirm notably WMC who is an admitted GW-denier William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, try again. You don't get to give orders in this userspace. Until you change your tone & reply with some modicum of respect, please don't visit here again. In the meantime, you're free to search the Talk:GW page for the 'denier' comment you made. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor charging "vandalism" --not a good start for healthy debate

" (diff | hist) . . m Politico (newspaper)‎; 23:56 . . (-176) . . Weaponbb7 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by PrBeacon identified as vandalism to last revision by Arzel. (TW)) "

• to User:Weaponbb7 (talk)

I think your revert (of my revert) was inappropriate for a couple of reasons, including the fact the the issue in question has been brought up at a RFM and therefore should not be stricken pending mediation results. especially unexpected is your edit summary of 'vandalism' as well as the absence of any note on the talkpage. if you look at page's recent page history, you will see that it is in fact I who marked the sentence with the fact tag, not Arzel. he/she then removed the line without consensus or even talkpage discussion, either -- after s/he merely questioned Politico's bias at the RfM. thank you for understanding. i hope you will kindly undo your revert. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you ignored my first attempt to open a dialogue I see no alternative than to be blunt: your reply to the Politico talkpage does not belong on the RFM page for the MMfA-Clinton issue. And the section I started at Talk:Politico most certainly should not be collapsed or 'moved' without my consent -- check WP:TPG about refactoring other's comments. Also What is not vandalism, particularly when you think it violates NPOV. Further clarification can be found at the talkpage archives for WP:Vandalism. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that this isn't the first time he's charged vandalism & ignored the editor's follow-up rebuttal. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Our verifiability policy states that unsourced material can and should be removed if it is challenged: you don't get a free pass on including an unsourced statement that Politico is conservative-leaning or pro-Republican just because it is {{fact}}-tagged. And canvassing an AN/I thread is very unhelpful, especially when Blaxthos was just involved in a mediation on Media Matters for America. What purpose does keeping the AN/I thread open serve, other than making this content dispute harder to resolve? Fences&Windows 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the escalation. I recognize my part in this and the mistakes I've made, but at the time I felt justified because of past talkpage discussion and non-content issues already covered at ANI. A big part of the problem is that I think some editors feel free to ignore the talkpage and do what they want to an article. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, imo, and it borders on offensive. At the least it discourages healthy debate.

• I didn't think I was canvassing, just asking another editor for feedback User_talk:Blaxthos#Current_ANI: "please let me know..." -- I didn't say for him to post at the ANI and I didn't think he would. I can understand a small argument that it might be borderline, though I would disagree. (One question to clarify: are you referring to the current mediation or another one?)
• I think the bigger problem of content was that the article is another partisan news source with protective editors/fans. For example, the Edwards snafu has been continually removed. (Politico announced the Edwards campaign was over, based upon an anonymous source. They had to retract the piece and it was a big embarassment in 2007). Last month I posted the primary source with quote Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Bias. No one responded. I let it slide, unfortunately, for over a month when I got caught up in other issues. But I still felt that it was worth discussing and I'd hoped the others would say something about it. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, ignoring talk pages is not good, though there does seem to be discussion now. I can see why you contacted Blaxthos - but even the perception of canvassing is something to avoid when at AN/I, even if it wasn't your intention. A solution to this might be to advertise the debate to relevant WikiProjects, seek a third opinion, or even have an RfC. Have you got sources on the Edwards campaign incident? Also, to get a good response from other editors look for reception of Politico generally, rather than only digging up negative criticism. Fences&Windows 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize I didn't answer your first question, "What purpose.." The ANI notice is more than the content dispute, because Arzel is among the most entrenched at another article and he's fighting the same sort of content balance there. I haven't heard an admin weigh in on the retaliation issue spiling over from E.A.R.. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and feedback, again. At the talkpage I see some discussion from outside editors but I'm waiting to see if the two other involved editors actually want to collaborate. I see that Weaponbb7 continues to disparage the criticism in what seems like a defensive manner ("insidious") but says he doesn't really care about their bias(?) Also, he's fine with the article as is (as Arzel has edited it) despiyr the quote he calls "baloney" again. He appears to want someone else to write the actual content so he can shoot it down. And Arzel has not joined the new thread there. I expect them both to dig in their heels about changing the lead to reflect criticism, despite WP:Lead policy, as Arzel has done over at FNC.

   From what I've read Politico's general reception is mixed, depending on the source. They were big players in the 2008 election (within DC media circles, anyway) and usually careful to appear non-partisan. If I happen to feel a WP article lacks balance, especially in the lead, I usually find it mentioned already in the discussions, or at least more context. If it's not I'll ask there first. I rarely "dig up" only negative stuff (I'm not saying you characterize it that way). The current criticism of Politico was already in the article & talkpage when i got there in May. At Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Criticsm someone mentioned the Edwards thing in light of a 'lone editor removing' it back in 2007. I reviewed the history and it was sourced but (to me) looked too minor to include in such a short article. Maybe the issue seemed bigger back then, idk. I can look at it later, but at the moment I'm concerned about those 2 editors who don't seem to acknowledge their part in the dispute. - 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) revised -PrBeacon (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Thank you :-)

I actually haven't checked my user page since I left, but saw this and wanted to send it on to you in the event that you had not seen it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/whaling

Best wishes to you too...it was a pleasure. Oberonfitch (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

to Rapier/SeanNovack

Get off your high horse. You, Badmintonhist, Niteshift36 and now Croctotheface are sidetracking every discussion by jumping on what you perceive is unfair or inappropriate commentary. Your hypocritical lecturing on article talkpages like FoxNews and MMfA is what's more distracting and unconstructive than the quick comments to which you reply. You accuse others of wiki-battling yet you can't see your own comments as patronizing and dismissive, even snide. So take it to WQA if you think it's a problem (heads up: others have tried already, only the entrenched editors see it as so offensive). -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

His reply: further self-serving distortions and projections, ending with the petulant retort "stay off my user page". -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

a thought..., if you are running into THAT much opposition, perhaps you are on the wrong side of an argument (or at fault in terms of behavior as the case may be, this just seems to be a general thing)? Soxwon (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just a weak way of saying you're right, or they're right. I can accept disagreement about content, debate about style, but not editors talking down to others. Especially not when they presume to lecture & scold while violating the very policies and guidelines they like to quote themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To Trypto

I'm responding to you here (below) because I don't wish to clutter the ANI anymore than it already is. I see that you still have a need to get the last word in. Perhaps with some distance you can see the hole you're digging, but I doubt it based on your lapses in self-awareness.

Heh, you felt vindicated there because one (not plural, as you say here) outside editor simply called it "usual disagreement"? You even admitted to a mistake at the WQA. The two other editors there asked for diffs, but I decided to let it rest. The "intense feeling of recognition" you mentioned at the ANI is more like vengeance against SV, and you can't seem to let it go. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: FNC

My argument is partly distilled into defending this addition to the lead section. I think it summarizes the controversy subarticle and best represents the primary criticism. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

watchdogging...

continued from User talk:Viriditas

Also meant to ask: has anyone requested CheckUser on the half-dozen accounts camped there to defend the article from balance? I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them works at FNC. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who they work for, but we should be keeping tabs on how often they pop up to revert. Can you make a list? Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into finding a way, perhaps there is a way to automate it. By the way, your input at talk:FNC controversies would be appreciated -PrBeacon (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

to Soxwon

Stop patronizing at Talk:Fox News

Some of your recent comments at Talk:Fox News cross the line of civility. You're patronizing other editors with snide remarks like "You need to read." Since you started a respectful dialogue with me earlier this year, I'll give you more slack than others who didn't. But now you're coming off just as belligerent as the hardcore FNC defenders. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am trying to avoid another huge, unwieldly discussion such as what happened with the NC Donation section. I realize I may appear to be patronizing and apologize for that, but really I'm trying to just get to the meat of the argument, namely why you think that the material should go back in. I'll try to stop using potentially insulting language for the duration of the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on Talk:Fox News Channel where others can participate. PrBeacon, reverting is not helpful. Please focus on collecting diffs and evidence instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

Howdy! I don't want to seem unwelcoming nor do I have any complaint whatsoever about any of your edits. I just noticed you userpage and wanted to point to Misplaced Pages:NOTADVOCATE, in case you've never seen it. Be careful that editing does not tend toward advocacy for a particular belief or cause. Identifying a systematic bias is important, and addressing it is part of writing an encyclopedia. But be careful that advocacy is left at the door (especially when you think others are advocating for contrary positions). In any event, thanks for the work on Misplaced Pages and I hope my concern here was completely misplaced (as I say, it was only brought about by your userpage, rather than any edits). If there's anything I can help with, or if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a line. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

point taken, thanks. that was written quickly upon my return from an extended wiki-break. i know not all editors believe in the flagpole approach to balance, but i think it's a practical necessity given the entrenched activism i've seen on several controversial pages. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)