Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20170618182814/@comment-4028641-20170618233730

The contradiction I saw is evident.

You moved Martin Luther King Jr to Martin Luther King due to an audio not mentioning the Jr, and then suggested that the picture of Martin Luther King Jr could be discussed at Martin Luther King Jr exclusively, without any reference within the article to who the person in the picture actually is.

"For instance, Martin Luther King Jr page could say something like: "an image of a prominent figure from human history could be seen on screens inside the Cathedral.""

- Amorkuz

Thus suggesting that we could not confirm via basic logic that the Martin Luther King mentioned in The Age of Revolution and the figure seen in The Life of the Land were the same person, and thus that they must have different pages. Since there's no way to say that the voice heard in Remembrance is the face seen in The Lie of the Land, your logic holds one solution -- three different pages for one predominant historical figure.

Let us note that there is a difference between saying "You aren't listening to me about this one small aspect," and you saying "You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion". One of those is a clarification, one of those is a generalization.

Speaking of restoring missing parts of the conversation, allow me to post the rest of NateBumer's quote.

"I think this thread clarifies a valuable subtlety of the existing policy, a subtlety that affects multiple pages in meaningful ways despite not being well represented on the actual policy page (which should be edited to prevent further misunderstanding in this way)."

- NateBumer

The point is that as Martin Luther King is such a short page, all of the information presented is not hindered in visibility. Now see a page like The Beatles. How would it help our readers to put the appearances of Beatles media in the behind-the-scenes section, so far away and in such a crowded area that it will soon be forgotten? Simple answer: it won't.

Once again, as I have directly challenged that your interpretation of the policy is by any meany valid, I ask that you do not use language like "Perhaps, other longer-serving admins would be able to explain this policy in better ways than me," as if I'm a baby in the crib who doesn't comprehend English. I do understand the rules, I've studied the rules, there is no precedent or basis in taking the rules to such a degree.