User talk:Anastrophe

Posts here will be archived after I read them.

Section

my apologies , i just used little grammar good and add source on O. J. Simpson's alleged abused his first wife and i add another source from new York times old achieves on 1995 trial by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to place replies on the other person's talk page if you use the "Reply" button on your own page; the respondent will be pinged. The grammar in the addition was almost incomprehensible, as is the grammar in your reply here; and the allegation is inappropriate based on BLP rules, since Whitney denies the claim.

I must ask, is English your native language? If not, you would probably do much better on the wiki that is in your native language. Wikipedia must maintain strict standards of quality; routinely adding incorrect grammar and punctuation requires other editors to then repair it, or remove it if it's not appropriate, as are many of your edits.

I take no pleasure in saying any of this; my original comment on your talk page recommended that you use extraordinary care when editing the encyclopedia, and it's still possible for you to make constructive edits: write your edit, preview it, perhaps run the text through a grammar and spelling checker, preview it again, then publish it.

While I can't promise to always be available, I would be willing to offer my assistance when possible - you can paste your edit here, I'll review it and advise any corrections, then you can publish it in the actual article. The problem with that is that there may be long intervals between my responses, which could be frustrating for you. But the offer is there. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your Mace article cleanup

I really appreciated your cleanup of the article, save for one thing: The Mace quote is absurd on its face and thoroughly self-serving.

Therefore, I think it best -- and in keeping with the Wikipedia ethic to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources -- to omit her comment.

Here's the NYT take on the extraction of 30,000 Black voters from what had been her swing district that she'd won by a single point, the ACLU's then-successful suit against the gerrymander with NAACP plaintiffs, that led the unanimous three-judge District Court to throw it out. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/politics/nancy-mace-gerrymandering.html Activist (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this is multi-pronged:

• Mace's comment was conversational; obviously not everybody knows that it wasn't drawn on racial lines, and nobody would take it at face value;
• Any 'rebuttal' response would have to be equally vapid to be NPOV - someone else saying "well, everybody in SC knows that it was racial gerrymandering"; that wouldn't be an improvement;
• The court's opinions and decisions make up the bulk of the section; Mace's one-liner response is NPOV relative to that;
• The article is the BLP of Nancy Mace; in-depth discussion of the matter is relevant to the article on South Carolina's 1st district/the gerrymandering article, and likely other places, but not so much here, because again - Mace didn't redraw the district herself, and the article is a BLP.

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)