User talk:Slartibartfast1992/Archives/2008/January

Happy New year!

Hey, what's happening? All the best for 2008! Dfrg_msc 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, sorry for the late res, I've been at the coast, it was great. How are you doing? What's the problem with your sig? Is it that the Time stamp finds it's own line? I think that's cause there's a space, try this: [[User:Slartibartfast1992|<font color="black">'''Slarti'''</font>]][[User talk:Slartibartfast1992|<font color="black">'''bartfast'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Slartibartfast1992|<font color="black">'''<small>1992</small>'''</font>]] Cheers, Dfrg_msc 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing article name

Hello, again :) I was wondering if you thought changing the article name from What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable to What Is Your Dangerous Idea? would be okay with you. It's much shorter and the "Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable" is a subtitle, which could be mentioned in the article. Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll fix the title. I still have to recover from my vacation too. :P Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case

Greetings,

I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules on how to handle mediation cases. I would suggest soliciting some concrete proposals from both sides in the discussion section of the Mediation page. Ultimately, the goal (I think) is to break the deadlock of a "permanent lack of consensus" that seems to have developed at Human rights and the United States. Good luck, Silly rabbit (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The short version of this referendum is to address the following question: Whether or not the section on Universal Health Care should remain in the article. If so, what bits of it should stay. Raggz feels (primarily) that the section does not comply with WP:OR.

There is a bunch of stuff on the talk page, and not all of it is relevant to this particular issue (though it would be nice if it also reached a wider editorial audience). To make matters worse, User:Viriditas has recently archived much of the page (unfortunately including some still-live threads). This is good for the purpose of keeping discussion focused, but bad if you are trying to research a mediation case. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to you on my own talk page, and I will opt to keep further discussions there, unless you have a strong preference otherwise. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal health care dispute redux

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have taken some of Raggz's objections into consideration, and made some edits in the disputed section of Human rights and the United States. I admit that it is not perfect now, and Raggz certainly has new objections (as well as some positive remarks) concerning the current shape of things. So I am going to hold off to see how things develop before attempting to give an unbiased assessment here.

Disclaimer. If you want my biased assessment, on the other hand, I can give it to you. It seems to me that Raggz has already made up his/her mind that the disputed section should be removed, regardless of its contents. (Or, at the very least, until the contents represent entirely Raggz's POV.) Thus, despite attempting to address some of his/her concerns over balance and NPOV, Raggz continues to threaten deletion unless certain demands are met.

Furthermore, the demands that need to be met have changed since the last time around. What started out as Original Research is now going to be deleted because (according to Raggz) it fails to represent all sides of the issue. However, rather than attempt to engage in editing in a constructive way by providing references as to the other point of view, Raggz has opted yet again to threaten unilateral deletion.

This kind of behavior, citing Wikipedia policy to advance a particular agenda, and then constantly moving the goal posts, is (I believe) in violation of the behavioral guideline WP:GAME. At the very least it is tendentious, and really frustrating to deal with. I'm not suggesting that you do anything about it, but it may be one reason why you have trouble finding a coherent position amid all of the noise. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

MedCab assistance

How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Human rights and the United States? Is there anything I could help with? You expressed a little confusion/frustration in the case page and I just want to lend a hand however I can. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense was intended in offering you a hand. I looked over the case page and you do express some mild confusion and frustration in a few places. Mostly, what I would provide is some suggestions and advice based on my experience and observations. Again, no offense was intended on my part. Please accept my apologies if it was construed in that fashion. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Resp

Hey Dude! Sorry for the late resp, congrads on getting a case on MebCab, it'll take patience but I'm sure you'll have it sorted. For the "how it was made section" you could use "development" or "production". Cheers, Dfrg_msc 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I will take a look over it and provide some feedback a bit later. I need to wander away from the 'net for a bit to take care of a few things. At worst, I'll get back to you within a day. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions or facts?

I am somewhat distressed by the line at the mediation case that we are "stuck in the second step because editors claim that their opinions are facts, so they do not need to cover both sides." Do you have any examples of this? I strongly dispute this characterization, for my own part, and would happily see a more extensive treatment of both sides of the debate.

I realize that I may have said something along the lines of "I state facts and not opinions." I also made quite clear from the context that I was referring to was giving proper attribution to opinions (e.g., of courts, rights organizations, governing bodies, notable figures, etc.) We can't go around stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice. There is no way to write an article on the subject of human rights at all if we are not allowed to cite the opinions of others. For instance, "According to the Supreme Court..." "Amnesty International claims..." (etc.) I note that Raggz's side of this argument has yet to identify a single line of text that does not pass his latest test of WP:ASF. (Previous tests have included WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:CON, and WP:NPOV).

I have established (as a fact attributed to reliable sources) several notable opinions regarding Universal Health Care and Human Rights, some asserting and some denying that it is a Human Right, and specifically focused on political commentary on the United States; that is to say, on both sides of the debate. If Raggz, or other involved editors, would like to contribute more voices to the debate, then those can and should certainly be incorporated. More research can clearly be done, but that will move the section in the direction of expansion, rather than removal.

However, the fact that Raggz has not engaged in any good-faith effort to add to the section (beyond advocating unwaveringly for its removal) clearly adds weight to my suspicion that Raggz's motive is, and has always been, to gut the section irrespective of its contents. For instance (quoting Raggz):[1]

“ To this point: There is no reliable source that universal health care is a human right within the US. This absence makes the entire Universal Health Care section a SYN policy violation, and consensus is not required for removal. An effort for consensus was made, and considerable efforts expended, but in the end policy violations require deletion even without consensus. ”

This predilection for unilaterally citing policy in the name of making controversial deletions, and of constantly shifting the policy being cited, is a characteristic of tendentious editing, and of gaming the system. (Human rights and the United States is not the only article where Raggz has been causing problems for others. See also Talk:Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States.) If actual policy violations were taking place here, then other editors should be coming out of the woodwork to prevent them. Reports should have been filed (and listened to) at the Administrators' noticeboard. Users should have been blocked. None of this has happened, so I can only conclude that no policy is being violated. This is all posturing and bullying on the part of Raggz.

Therefore, I think that an important next step in this process is to ask Raggz what views he/she feels are underrepresented. If indeed my interpretation of your notes at the MedCab case is correct, then the primary issue seems to be that both sides of the debate have not been given a fair airing. So, let's hear it. Who are these unsung debaters of Universal Health Care and Human rights in the United States? Silly rabbit (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)