Hey, the general Wikipedia policy is that unmodified job titles, as proper nouns, are capitalized. (per
MOS:JOB).
There was recently a relevant talk over at
Talk:Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz#Capitalization for titles that goes a bit more in-depth about the subject, if you'd like to have a look. If you want to seek a new consensus, however, please do so on the article's talk page first.
The manual of style isn't Wikipedia Policy. Just a guideline. It doesn't look good when the title is capitalized, it's distracting there in the lede
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 09:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia's MoS is a generally accepted standard (exceptions do apply, but whether something looks good or not is pretty subjective). If you'd like to seek a new consensus, please bring it to the talk page. Thanks a lot!
Max19582 (
talk) 09:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Uh... it's you who's changing the consensus of prime minister not being capitalized in the opening sentence of the article.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the
arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic
here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{
Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
April 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
2007 Polish parliamentary election, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 05:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello @
CanonNi could you specify which message toward which user you're referring to? My suspicion that Zenomonoz is engaged in whitewashing? That wasn't meant as an attack but as a suspicion of breaking WP, see
WP:NOTADVOCACY.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 01:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You replied to NicolausPrime's second message with "Idk why you would brag about failure. Despicable well-poisoning." '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 01:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear @
CanonNi, that was a reply to NicolausPrime's message and I called the well-poisoning attempt despicable, not him as a person. It's a clear well-poisoning attempt and unrelated to the topic at hand.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 01:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I posted that link in the
WP:ANEW thread because there was significant circumstantial evidence there from me and two other users that FeldmarschallGneisenau may be engaging in sockpuppetry. I think this is a helpful thing to do, as it may help
WP:ANEW patrolling admins to investigate in own capacity, who otherwise might haven't found it.
If other editors believe that this is not the right thing to do, e.g. because it constitutes inappropriate
poisoning the well, and perhaps that I should have immediately opened a new SPI investigation instead, please let me know so that I can improve.
NicolausPrime (
talk) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suspect the user knew exactly what you meant, given their history of trollish comments on talk pages. Definitely
WP:NOTHERE.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zenomonoz "Trollish," that is completely subjective, and a meaningless accusation. I can assure you I am not trolling, I'm simply doing my Wikipedian job in a good-faith manner. See
WP:AGF.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I accept that. There's a discussion going on whether public records published by the Government are reliable or not. I do not contend the admin's decision.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 01:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources. A random govt document that mentions his birth name in a small section is a primary source. Learn the difference.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 02:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually I'm not even sure it's a primary source, like, it's not a birth certificate. I don't get what you're fighting over. That the Government, saying with certainty about him "PODCASTER LEX FRIDMAN. (BORN: ALEXEI FEDOTOV AUGUST 15, 1983. IN CHKALOVSK, RUSSIA;" is lying? I don't get your point. Seems authoritative enough and reliable to me.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 02:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (bolding mine). A FOIA document present on a governmental website is a public document. Therefore, the BLP policy prohibits using FOIA documents in any biography of a living person, including
Lex Fridman.
Being reliable and being secondary are different things, and neither implies the other.
NicolausPrime (
talk) 02:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a debatable assertion of personal characteristics though, just straightforward basic facts like birth name and birth place. See
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The BLP policy trumps general policies, as it covers a specific, narrower set of pages. Also note that
WP:BLPPRIMARY further states "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.", which seems to cover this case too, as legal/birth name is very much a personal detail.
NicolausPrime (
talk) 02:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's the Honorable Administrator's input: To wit, under
WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This seems compatible with using government documents (which again, are not always primary sources) to support the subject's birth date and place as that can easily be verified by looking at those documents. In fact it might not even be a primary source - it's not a birth certificate.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 02:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Except no government has confirmed his birth name here. The paragraph in the
document is a request SUBMITTED by Julia Black (look at the actual titles on the columns, it says "REQUESTER").
Zenomonoz (
talk) 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a request for more in-depth information on this individual born as Alexei Fedotov in Chkalovsk.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 02:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Julia Black wrote the paragraph. She is a journalist. She does not work for the DNI or the United States government, so we have no reliable independent source on birth name here. Sorry.
Zenomonoz (
talk) 02:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, not really.
WP:DAILYBEAST says there's no consensus on whether it's reliable: Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 03:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Daily Beast doesn't mention this alleged birth name. I suspect that the user we are dealing with is a troll who is
WP:NOTHERE and intentionally trying to waste editor time. Note that they also made troll comments to another user documented
here...
Zenomonoz (
talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am simply new to Wikipedia. You are not being nice right now, however, if you feel irritated, you are free to vacate yourself of this discussion. You do not have an obligation to be on my Talk page.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 03:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please refrain from attacking other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 03:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Daniel Case (
talk) 01:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, I accept it. I do not contend Your decision. There's a discussion whether public records published by the Government are reliable or not.
FeldmarschallGneisenau (
talk) 01:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply