Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kenfree: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:37, 28 October 2014 editMediationBot (talk | contribs)5,654 edits A request for mediation which you are a party to has been rejected← Previous edit Revision as of 20:21, 29 October 2014 edit undoSpotter 1 (talk | contribs)229 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 61: Line 61:
<small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small> <small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small>
}} }}

== Request ==

I'd like to call your attention to a motion on the RT talk page (57 Motion NPOV tag) that I started. This is, in my opinion, a more actionable step towards reaching the goal of an article that fulfills the NPOV policy.] (]) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 29 October 2014

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kenfree, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Green Book

Hi Ken. It is not appropriate in interpolate commentaries in the text of an article. The place to raise these concerns is on the article's talk page. Please raise your issues here. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kenfree

I started the thread about your behavior at ANI. Please comment there. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation request

This is in response to your email to the Mediation Committee requesting mediation of a dispute at RT (TV network). Before requesting mediation please thoroughly read and consider the Mediation Committee Policy, giving particular note to the "Principles," "What is mediation?," and "Prerequisites" sections. If you still desire mediation after familiarizing yourself with the policy, submit your request through the "File a request" section of the Requests for mediation page, as the Committee does not accept or consider requests made via email. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC), Chairperson

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled

PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article, there is an identical post under this headline, thank you.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming an propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the Etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" reads like a script of (history) accusations ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin " , (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

private response to your invitation to the formal mediation

Let's do this.

Concerning Ymblanter thatswhy I wrote "understands somewhat" about the issue. In his post "Proposed reorganization of RT (TV network) page" he concedes that rt is singled out, but I very much disagree with his propaganda statement insofar that if the feature propaganda is added to journalism you would have to have similar introductionary statements for ALL other journalistic organizations. The purpose to inform someone is never just for the sake of informing someone but the act of informing, given it is "true", carries in itself the sting "calling" for acting accordingly. I think this is something he will agree on no matter if he is a participant or not.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages

Why are you mangling my re-pings? Please read WP:TPO. If you wanted to amend the text in the barnstar you awarded, make the change to your own text and mark it as being a minor edit, and provide a relevant edit summary such as "ce - amending wording in barnstar". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request

I'd like to call your attention to a motion on the RT talk page (57 Motion NPOV tag) that I started. This is, in my opinion, a more actionable step towards reaching the goal of an article that fulfills the NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)