This is an archive of past discussions about The Merchant of Venice. 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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pointless arguments are self-sustaining. Replying to a comment means that the other person is likely to respond. Then someone replies to the response which elicits another response. And so ad infinitum.
The correct procedure is to say nothing unless it is believed there is a problem in the article. In that case, start a new section with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. Edit warring against consensus will not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate.
The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy".
The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that.
In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I see that user @AlexAndrews was blocked from Wikipedia after making the following comment (in section "Procedures"):
If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate.
The crucial phrase here is "and that action does not contravene policy".
The express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
Consensus opinion cannot be used to override the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia, and removing encyclopedic content (by consensus - and on false grounds) is doing exactly that.
In short, editors need to stop using sophistry in order to wrongfully justify vandalising an article and then using sophistry again to wrongfully claim their illegitimate actions are supposedly legitimate simply because they are approved by consensus. AlexAndrews (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)}}
Yes there's a reason: it's sophomoric nonsense showing you are unable to comprehend basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please stop referring to yourself in the third person; we're not fools. EEng17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
And FTR, AlexAndrews is merely blocked, not banned -- yet. But the above, combined with whatever he did to get a 6-month suspension of UTRS access [1], may get him there in record time. EEng21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I see that you have resorted to casting apsersions to avoid answering my question, so allow me to ask you again: is there a reason why user @Johnuniq then hid the above comment by @AlexAndrews from readers of this talk page?
The reason I ask is that, based on the evidence from this talk page, Wikipedia is being used to promote propaganda and false information about anti-semitism. So I would like to know if it is common for Wikipedia to be used to promote propaganda and false information, or if it is just on the subject of anti-semitism that Wikipedia is used to promote propaganda and false information. Road Block 24 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
