User talk:Arcturus/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Arcturus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, do you have any advice for engaging with John Maynard Friedman and Cambrial I took JMF at his word and suggested a new longer lead as a compromise and Cambrial just instantly came back with nothing constructive, just a bunch of policies I'd breached with the proposal? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@80.42.39.51: It looks like the issue with JMF maybe settled, based on his comments on your Talk page; so that's a step in the right direction. Cambrial is like one or two editors I've come across recently in other areas, who use Wikipedia policies as a weapon, rather than a device to promote improvement. Unfortunately, it's often the case that the only way to deal with this tactic is to use it yourself. However, this can be difficult, given the plethora of policies and the time and effort required to get to grips with them. Nevertheless, this is perhaps your best option in the current debate, and for the future - at least when dealing with this type of editor. Also, ensure you don't fall into the ad-hominem trap (very difficult to avoid, at times), so just comment on content, never on the editor or his motives. Another point to be au-fait with is WP:BRD (I hesitate here to quote a policy, but it is a good one). Use it if an editor makes changes you disagree with, regardless of their claims about sourcing or whatever. You will find, however, that this is the one policy that the policy warriors will disregard. Concerning the edits reverted by Cambrial, I had a quick look and your sources seem good. Pinsentmasons and the FSB are reputable organisations and it's perfectly reasonable to quote their views. Unfortunately, Cambria has invoked BRD on this. Maybe find well-sourced contrary views and then put the original material back, with the contrary views as well? Hope this helps, but get back to me if you think I can be of any further assistance. Arcturus (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is really helpful. You are the only person on this site who has been kind from the get go! Thanks. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the compliment. Arcturus (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this text read neutrally to you?

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It established an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, providing the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The Bill received national and international criticism due to elements that would have empowered the UK government to break the Northern Ireland Protocol of its withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Legislation also continues to face national criticism for its impact on devolution. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@80.42.39.51: The first paragraph is clearly acceptable, with no NPOV issues. The second paragraph, in detailing the criticism of the Bill, could be construed as one-sided. However, it is factual - good, reputable secondary sources will be needed - and it would not be easy to find sources offering a contrary view; how often do you see commentators and analysts singing the praises of legislation? That said, given the controversy around this one, there may well be material that answers the criticism. If you can find such material, then perhaps include some of it. If, on the other hand, there is no such material in reputable sources, don't let that prevent the inclusion of the text. Someone may stick an NPOV banner over the section containing the text, but they shouldn't just delete it (that's not to say that they won't). Overall, I think the text as it stands is fine, and I'd be inclined to add it to the article and see what happens. The main point is that it is factual. (as I write this, they're talking about it on the BBC!) Arcturus (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Grahaml35 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I know have an account but I was IP 80 something you've helped so much!

The two gatekeepery boys on the UKIM page have now reported me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring I don't want to get into tit for tat reporting etc as that all sounds exhausting, but is there anything that can be done about their behaviour? PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC) p.s I copied your welcome to my new talk page. Thanks again for being so sweet!

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor. I've placed some comments on the noticeboard. I hope they help resolve the issue, and I don't see a case for a 3RR block. On the matter of behaviour, if the aggression continues you could try filing a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, most complaints here, genuine or not, tend to get 'talked out'. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help you're a star! PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye on developments. Arcturus (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I read the discussion on that edit war page, sorry they started attacking you too. Thanks though it was really good of you to weigh in like that PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi PlainAndSimpleTailor. That's okay. Glad to have been of assistance. It looks like the matter is closed now with a three-day block. Hopefully progress can be made in the discussions. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that because the pandemic is so new (relative to, say, heart attacks) that it's been very difficult for editors to live up to WP:MEDRS's ideal. A more relevant question might be about which sources are the best available, rather than which ones meet a specific standard. For the particular subject in question, it might be far more relevant to ask whether the resulting article is WP:DUE overall. The big picture is harder but more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)