User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2022/December

Do you have any proper arguments to make on the Andrew Anglin page or not?

Official links

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

   The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
   The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided...124.246.107.159 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links

The Anglin twitter account fulfills the two criteria stated under "official links" section in wiki external links page and is thus not subjected to the "no social media" rule.

Do you have ANY arguments to MAKE AT ALL?

124.246.107.159 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@124.246.107.159: Read farther down the page: one should generally avoid providing external links to: 10. Social networking sites (such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and TikTok), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Facebook Groups), Usenet newsgroups or email lists. Additionally, you're editing against consensus as multiple editors have reverted your edits and have explained this to you. ButlerBlog (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address my arguments on the OFFICIAL PAGE sections at all. No one has. The Anglin account is exempted because it fulfills the two criteria stated under "official links" section in wiki external links page and is thus not subjected to the "no social media" rule. No one has addressed this argument.124.246.107.159 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You're reading that wrong, there is no such exemption. Besides, multiple editors have given you plenty of reasons, which indicates that you are editing against consensus. You need to gain consensus in order to put this in. ButlerBlog (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me why there is no exemption. How did I "read" it wrong? No editor has ever given me even ONE reason why there is no exemption. There had been ZERO explanations as to why there is no exemption.124.246.107.159 (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@124.246.107.159:

1. Per your argument at AN/I that you sought consensus via my talk page, that's not where you seek out consensus through discussion. You need to do that on the article's talk page.

2. At present, consensus through editing is against inclusion of this link. Unless that changes, you are editing against consensus and can expect to be reverted. There doesn't need to be a reason given other than the fact that has already been stated - the edit is against consensus.

3. It is unlikely that you will get a shift in consensus.

4. There is no proof this is Anglin's twitter account.

5. Regardless of #4, there is no obligation to include ANY external links (Wikipedia articles may include external links - emphasis on may).

6. Everything in WP:EL is a guideline. Refer to WP:RULES for the difference between rules, policies, and guidelines. Unless it runs afoul of some specific hard-and-fast rule (not a guideline), then ultimately it is determined by consensus, which, as I have already pointed out ad nauseum, is against inclusion in this case. See #2 above.

7. Lastly, and most importantly, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that other editors are under some obligation to address your specific concerns and/or "rebut" your arguments. That's not how Wikipedia works. No one is obligated to give you an explanation, and editing is not about presenting arguments and rebuttals. Wikipedia is not a battleground. In fact, there are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not that apply to everything that has transpired in this, so I would suggest that you read WP:NOT since several of those points apply. You're (currently) welcome to continue as an editor here, but if you approach it with a battleground mentality like you have, you'll end up blocked. That's not in any way a threat - it's just a dose of reality.

I am not wasting any more time on this. If you have something constructive to contribute, discuss it on the article talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Any recommendations for “entertaining” talk page articles?

@Butlerblog I’m quite bored at the moment, something I do to entertain myself is reading “controversial” article talk pages. Do you have any recommendations for talk pages that are “entertaining” for a lack of better words? I was going to read the Shroud of Turin talk page, since it’s is admittedly amusing to read the “clash of cultures” there. But unfortunately its been a little stale as it’s became a filled with the same boring “yada yada…found fringe source…yada yada” cliche. Have any that you find entertaining? Wolfquack (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfquack: Just to let you know, you don't have to ping a user when posting on their talk page. Anytime someone posts to a user's own talk page, they will be notified in the header menu and alerts automatically. You only need to ping them if you want them to be alerted to a specific mention somewhere other than their own talk page. I'm sure there are quite a few talk pages with "entertaining" discussions, if that's what you're looking for. Personally, I find contentious discussions to be frustrating timewasters rather than entertainment. Any active article that is in some fringe space will likely have something contentious in it. Just be careful that you don't get drawn into something. WP:NOTAFORUM applies to talk pages, too. If discussion drifts off into not addressing improvement to the article, don't get involved in it. If you want to understand where some of these things lead, look at WP:ANI. I would caution you, though, that until you have a very broad understanding of WP's policies and guidelines (and the difference between what those two things mean), don't jump into any discussions in ANI. I recommend it as a place to gain a better understanding of policy and how it is applied (and how things can go very wrong). That is where WP miscreants get sanctioned (so you don't want to end up involved in something that gets dragged in there). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tippet on pinging! By “entertaining talk pages” I was referring to talk page articles I could read, not necessarily respond to them. I didn’t have any intentions of joining the discussions or such, just reading them. It’s weird I know, but hey it’s the internet after all! Wolfquack (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfquack: Gotcha... well, I can't think of anything specific, but anything that has some level of "fringe" to the topic can spawn active discussion, or some of the more recent political topics. But it usually takes a catalyst, like an IP editing "to fix bias" or something like that. I don't spend much time actively looking for that - I only generally become aware of it happens on something in my watchlist. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog thanks for the tips :) . Wolfquack (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Wolfquack: the Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America talk page was pretty entertaining, for a while, when it was the hot topic of the week. At least, I thought it was. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The International Jew

Thank you for cleaning up that paragraph. I was certain that the original text was not the right way to phrase it, but even after I edited it, I knew that it wasn't quite right (the body doesn't help, as it doesn't clarify those exact points, and might need some work). Your version is the best way to have it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin: Thanks for the feedback. And you're right - the whole article does need work, and has needed attention for quite some time. I did some editing awhile back, and have meant to address some additional things, but just haven't gotten around to it. The times that I remember are when it pops up in my watchlist (like yesterday). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)