Talk:Al Franken

• /Archive 1

Quote in picture violated NPOV

I do personal attacks only on people who specialize in personal attacks. ~ Al Franken

Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. ~ Al Franken

Quote in picture violated WQ:NPOV. Therefore, I've changed it to a simple caption with name of subject and year of picture. -- Cirt (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Having quotes by Al Franken under an image of Al Franken in NO way violates ANY policies or aims of having NPOV. To assert that it does seems to be an absurdly ridiculous POV that amounts to trolling, and attempting to SEVERELY constrain the editorial options of others, as far as I can tell. I did NOT revert your edit, as I have no interest in getting into an edit war over a relatively trivial matter on this page at this time. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The selection of those quotes, in particular, is POV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As was emphasized YEARS ago in the very founding weeks of this wiki, the selection of ANY quote in any way is inherently POV. Quotation INHERENTLY involves POV processes, and to deny this is asinine. One CANNOT quote at ALL without engaging in a POV process of SELECTION of WHAT someone finds significant, and what quotes one finds significant. One can be HONEST about such facts or DISHONEST and dissimilate about it in various ways, but it remains a fact. The emphasis of it in a picture is a PROPER augmentation of the quotation presentation process here, which you seem intent on DISRUPTING in major ways, apparently as a new form of harassment of one particular editor who won't bow down to your presumptuous attempts at intimidation. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, the particular quotes used in the particular pictures was a violation of WQ:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, I find this a ridiculous assessment. and include the images with the captions as I had edited them, prior to your removal of an image, captions and quotes. So it goes... ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I strongly dispute your personal opinion here. Your selection of this particular quote violates WQ:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your objection to it strongly indicates a POV that it is UNWORTHY of note. My selection of it also indicates a POV that it is VERY WORTHY of note. Between the two there can be some conceivable neutral POVs, but the either way NEITHER your or my objections are either NPOV or innately violations of NPOV. Semiotic and other Logical principles indicate: One cannot have a neutral point of view save between at LEAST two points of view — and those who condemn points of view as not neutral are usually meaning they are not neutered POVS — and if you want neutered points of view, well, there is no sense in quoting anyone at all — because thats what quotes ARE — indications of POINTS OF VIEW. The presentations of quotes helps bring about awareness of the deficiencies and flaws in many forms of language and expressions in many ways. What these ways are remains to be seen by many. Blessings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

You have given zero rationale as to why your POV is "very worthy of note" and why you feel mine is "unworthy of note". -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalki (talk · contributions), I can see you will not stop replying until you have The Last Word, so go ahead. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OMFG: I can see you are not prone to stop replying until you have the last INSULT.

Prior to that last comment, your observations were ONCE AGAIN an extremely OBTUSE or DECEITFUL distortion of what I stated: I did NOT state MY POV is worthy of note and yours was NOT  — that is what YOU generally DO much of the time with ANYONE who disputes you — I said it was MY opinion that the QUOTE was VERY worthy of note, and YOUR apparent opinion that it was UNWORTHY of note. BOTH of these POVS are themselves SOMEWHAT worthy of NOTE — and OPPOSED to each other — and BETWEEN them can arise various Points of View, SOME of them closer to stances of neutrality than others. That is an element of the processes of DIALOGUE and the development of consensus by LOGICAL means. The opinions themselves do NOT necessarily need to arise from any clearly logical means, but disputations between them should involve a seeking of consensus on the matter — and on the FREEDOM to develop consensus rather than to accept stances of total hostility or total approval. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

Removed arbitrary bolding that violates NPOV

Removed arbitrary bolding diff, that violates WQ:NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bolding does NOT violate NPOV policies. It has been used as an emphatic and aesthetic device, especially on larger pages and within larger quotations, since the very first weeks of this WIkiproject on many pages, and for a person who has edited this project for years to be either genuinely ignorant or PRETEND to be ignorant of that FACT is somewhat incredible. Again I have not reverted these edits as I consider them trolling and rather of minor importance on so small a page. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The bolding of those certain sections, in particular, violates NPOV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

NO. It does NOT. PERIOD. It has been the long standing practice and policy here for years, with any major editorial disputes on WHAT to bold (which has actually rarely occured) to be settled by discussion and concensus. That you suddenly seem intent on objecting to this seems simply a new twist of your long years of HARASSING me. I am fairly confident that you believe you have succeeded in irritating and constraining me and others in ways you consider splendid and delightful in your recent spate of harassments and are now going attempting to to find ways further forms of trolling. I will concede you have succeeded in wasting a bit of my time tonight, and seem intent on continuing to do so, but the policies and practices of permitting them have been in place for years, and that is about all I will bother to say about it at this time. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC) + tweak

In this particular case, the bolding violated WQ:NPOV. There is zero overriding need for bolding on this page. In order to avoid violating WQ:NPOV again in the future, let's just not use bolding on this particular quote page. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I admire Al Franken, and might be interested in adding quotes to this page in the future, out of awareness of such contentions it would likely cause, I will probably refrain from doing so any time soon, or from immediately bothering in any way about such formatting rules as you seem to expect others to simply abjectly obey on your say-so. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems to go along with the message you received when last blocked diff. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too, Cirt, for another example of your smugly threatening ways. I have NEVER gone out of my way to harass you, and do not intend to. But for YEARS now you have often engaged in EXTENSIVE cross-wiki campaigns to harass me. That anyone is so unperceptive as to retain any high regard for your qualifications as an admin anywhere is something I find slightly surprising, but I am aware most people actually take less notice of your general activities than I do. ONE of your apparent goals and objective for some YEARS seems to have been to get me and many of my contributions removed from the Wikimedia projects in a rather OBSESSIVE manner. I have taken all these with a show of contempt, disdain, and occasional expressions of irritation which you seem to perceive as means to intimidate or threaten me in further ways. Such behavior seems little more than rather smug trolling and malicious harassment — but if others cannot see that, So it goes… ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You're violating the advice given to you from your most recent block, and you're doing it, right now. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalki (talk · contributions), I can see you will not stop replying until you have The Last Word, so go ahead. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved poorly sourced quotes to talk page

• Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
  • Oh, the Things I Know (2002)

• When you encounter seemingly good advice that contradicts other seemingly good advice, ignore them both.
  • Oh, the Things I Know (2002)

• The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.
  • Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them (2003)

• If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America.... They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.
  • Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them (2003)

• What I do is taking what they say and using it against them. What I do is jujitsu.
  • Al Franken: God Spoke (2006)

---

Moved poorly sourced quotes to talk page. Missing page numbers, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)