User talk:Alfietucker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Pyotr Slovtsov

Thank you, for your editrship. My English - very badly. I shall correct all your notice. depo (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited David Croft (TV producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus International

Very nice work and much needed and appreciated. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Alfietucker (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rochdale sex trafficking gang

The Times article is available here Ankh.Morpork 16:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - that's tremendously helpful. Alfietucker (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guilty as charged

I hated having to do that. Honestly. I think that interview holds some good insight into Cathy's thinking. Trouble is, nobody - but nobody - is going to bother reading it. They will see the headline, and many will say "A-HA! He admits it!" And then we have failed to give a balanced picture of what's really going on with this controversy.

So, I really think that some sort of a preface needs to be given, to properly convey to the reader that the headline was a cheap trick played by a sleazy and hostile media outlet. I have ideas, but it's not entirely up to you or I to decide. So, I'd say the thing to do it start a discussion and let the other editors talk it over. Cheers. Belchfire (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, I have reinstated the headline that was given to the original interview, since that is a contributory fact which explains the furore that followed. To brand the headline, as you wish to do, "a cheap trick played by a sleazy and hostile media outlet" is plainly POV. Alfietucker (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that such language go into the article. I'm just saying that if it isn't presented with some sort of explanatory verbiage, we're just turning Wikipedia into a tool for some sleazeball news editor. We shouldn't allow that to happen. We're better than that (I hope). Belchfire (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, a couple of points. 1) The headline was part and parcel of how the interview was first presented to the wider world - and therefore, given the time when it was published - was clearly a contributory factor in the controversy which followed. I would have thought the legitimacy of including this information is clear. 2) Wikipedia's policy is, as I understand it, to compile information which has been verified by reputable sources. It seems to me that I have only your say-so that the Baptist Press, which I had hitherto believed to be a reputable source, employs a "sleazeball news editor". Unless you can support your view with reputable sources then I have to assume you are pushing a POV agenda. Alfietucker (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I need to say this? I'm not against using the source. It's valuable for all of the reasons you've given, and probably more. But the headline is intentionally deceptive, so it can't be used without defusing the deception. You've got a discussion started, that's good. Work within the system. Belchfire (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you're not against using the source, but you're certainly delaying the appearance of a key element of it. Please also check the talk page on Chick-fil-A where I've said more about this issue. Alfietucker (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confident we will get this done, but it will be better if several of us do it together. It has a better chance of sticking that way. It might take a small amount of time, but Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Belchfire (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that

I didn't notice that he already had been mentioned. I was looking at changes and didn't know why that was removed especially per the Bill Clinton talk page asking about it. Thanks for pointing it out. ViriiK (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Alfietucker (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alfietucker. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 12:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 12:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Interracial Stuff

Hey fellow editor, thanks for mentioning the Bob Jones University situation at Talk:2012_Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Interracial_marriage, which discussion is by now rightfully closed. Just wanted to mention that BJU didn't actually repeal their interracial marriage ban (which was completely based on the Bible no matter what they claim now [1][2]) until 2000![3] Its hard to believe. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed hard to believe - and thank you for those references: I must admit I was bemused by how hard it was to find recent references to the Biblical link to the BJU policies, but of course it's the kind of thing that would be swept under the carpet. Do you know if these references are in the Wikipedia article on BJU? Alfietucker (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Its looks like at least the first cite I gave you is in the BJU article--and the wikipedia article text notes that they relied on nine Bible sections to justify the ban.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was added by me this morning. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)