Jump to content

User talk:Neutrality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.191.130.23 (talk) at 16:30, 26 October 2021 (→‎Balance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sigmaringen Castle
Photograph credit: Jörg Braukmann

Nomination for deletion of Template:Missouri Democratic primary, 2008

Template:Missouri Democratic primary, 2008 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Missouri Republican primary, 2008

Template:Missouri Republican primary, 2008 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelka Bio

Until you are able to describe the issues that you have with my edits, I intend to keep reclaiming them. To be blunt, I think it's obvious that you and I probably have different political affiliations, and that is reflected in how each of us wrote. However, despite your (perhaps facetious) username, I am confident that my version is the more neutral one. I did not intend to give Gazelka a glowing tribute, and even after my edits a large amount of the article contained negative coverage, such as the Covid related coverage. I personally think it's more appropriate to simply list a variety of the stances Gazelka has taken without providing supporting arguments in favor of, or against, those stances. I also think that a wide variety of stances and issues should receive similar word space. For example, I added one sentence mentioning abortion (which is as much a part of his socially conservative stance as the LGBT issue), but didn't add any details supporting why it's a "good" or "bad" stance. I could have (and probably should have) deleted the phrase about the high covid case count in the Dakotas as being something that ventures beyond a neutral summary of Gazelka's stances and into the territory of providing an argument against those stances, however, I decided to compromise by providing a more scientific analysis of the stance - one that came from a respected journal, looked at 50 states over a 6 month period, and yes (yay Democrats!) found that the Republican Covid response was worse...but not as dramatically worse as implied by the one narrow example that you preferred to display. Other examples of ways that this article demonstrated on obvious slant were by oversimplifying the sources in saying that Republicans opposed police reform efforts after Floyd's death (the article said "some" or "many" and gave examples of other reforms Republicans supported), saying that attendees did not wear masks at the post-election event (the article said "many or "most") etc... These changes were slight but strongly affected the tone of the article, and I believe that this was intentional, as evidenced in part by your reluctance to see it corrected.

Mjkite (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mjkite: I accepted several of your edits (for example, I agreed with the removal of some content in the "Personal life" section), and did not accept others. We go by what the reliable sources say about the subject directly; we don't get into much of "supporting arguments in favor of, or against, those stances" because that would often bog down the article, and because that type of material is often better suited to other types of articles, rather than individual biographies. For context, we rely on the relevant sources that directly mention the subject. Hence, the Dakotas content from the Star Tribune directly mentions Gazelka many times; the Medical News Today article that you added doesn't mention Gazelka (or even mention Minnesota). See Wikipedia:Synthesis. Neutralitytalk 19:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. From what I can see, the only edit you accepted was a potentially libelous one - characterizing Gazelka's experience of having viewed porn as an "addiction." There is a difference between legal and neutral, and this article was not neutral. Nor did you accept my newspaper article out of Duluth, although that is somewhat beside the point, because my issue is not with the quality of the sources, but the way the information was edited. Mjkite (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made a few more changes to the Gazelka Bio, and I appreciate your willingness to compromise on a more balanced draft that mentions a variety of policy issues. The quote about Gazelka acknowledging Biden's election victory, from the Turtinen article, is as follows: "Gazelka and Daudt again acknowledged President-elect Biden as the next president and said the electoral college process did its job .." I am not sure whether to bother pushing to get this included, because Gazelka's stance of acknowledging Biden's victory while also trying not to alienate Trump supporters mimics the approach of almost every other Republican politician, and is probably common knowledge. I'll think about it. It will be interesting to see how many more people take an interest in editing his page if he eventually gets the Republican nomination! Mjkite (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Vincent van Gogh images

A tag has been placed on Category:Vincent van Gogh images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NED

Hi, I initiated a discussion at the talk page.--70.53.45.159 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patricia Bates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Madrid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Hello, I've got an honest question about balance. I noticed you and two other users removed most of the fact-checks on Terry McAuliffe's page yet on his opponent's page (Glenn Youngkin) the page reads like increasingly a hit piece. More negative fact-checks are being put on there while they were cut off of McAuliffe's page. I noticed you also put context behind some of McAuliffe's vetos (which I agree with) yet on Youngkin's page it's just he didn't support the clean energy bill (because of concern of increased energy prices) or he doesn't identify the causes of climate change without mentioning his support for climate change adaptation measures like sea walls. I was going to message one of the users about it on their page but their user page was like a giant gloat about how they own the right. Also, the Youngkin page is increasing about CRT yet, when a number of the news articles covering the race don't even mention it. The politics section is like 20% about it and the lede. Also, on the education bill on the McAuliffe page, you cite bipartisanship for reducing accreditation standards by shifting to several other new standards yet you don't mention the supposed book ban was bipartisan too, you just list it as supported by social conservatives and Republicans when close to half the Democrats voted for it. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutrality&oldid=1051970213"