User talk:RhetoricianOfOurTime
Controversial topic area alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 04:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi RhetoricianOfOurTime! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 04:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Feb 2021
Given your user name I feel you should read this WP:NOTDUMB, so far your argumetns have not been based upon policy, and no matter how good you are at debating its meaningless, we adhere to rules.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Isn’t it policy not to spread disinformation and to be as non-opinionated as possible ?
I don’t think of myself as a great debater. I just have a graduates degree in rhetoric which makes me able to determine, when something clearly is affected by opinion, and thus it requires some insight to see, wether or not that opinion is based on evidence. If that basis merely is an ‘expert’ stating his/her own opinion, that is where you rely on ethos more than you rely on logos, especially when that expert doesn’t provide a reason for the labeling.
This article shows a poor view of rhetoric as if its only use is to persuade, sort of a Gorgianic way. It is not. Rhetoric is also used to determine sound speech and unsound speech.
The fact that my username* served as an interpellation for you to send me this article, tells me that you too have this narrow mind on what rhetoric is, which makes the article useless to me because you clearly wasn’t as smart as I thought you were.
RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)