User talk:Neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mike Pence Page[edit]

Please feel free to reword my edits on Pence’s religious freedom bill as a better source is needed. Please do do not revert any of my other edits, until we discuss on talk page however cause I do have legitimate concerns particularly regarding the birthright citizenship wording thank youBsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7 —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bsubprime7: Please discuss content on article talk pages, not user talk pages; (2) Please sign your posts with four tildes; (3) Please add new posts to the bottom, rather than the top, of talk pages, and (3) the onus to get consensus for new content generally rests with the proponent of the new content, namely you. Neutralitytalk 13:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback and I have offered my points on the talk page. My hope is that you and other editors can take heed to this and we can move to build consensus on the talk page. If no one is willing to engage however, it would be imprudent to allow the article to continue to state these falsehoods. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7

Please engage in the talk page and explain your reasoning in a short paragraph as to why you believe Pence opposes birthright citizenship in its totality. I am not attempting to edit war, but printing false statements is misleading and hurts WP’s integrity. Bsubprime7 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7

Moderating changes that delete inaccurate info.[edit]

While you removed my content of OANN being a constitutional news channel (which they are). If you would watch them you would know the citations given calling them radical also come from ultra liberal sources... hence they should be removed too. Another example of your bias (Wikipedia) CN n has snout 1/2 the citations Werbick (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Werbick: Your comment is fairly incomprehensible ("constitutional news channel" makes no sense), but in any case I recommend reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 04:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Medical licensing boards has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Medical licensing boards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of acts of the 110th United States Congress, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morrisville, Pennsylvania, Attachment and Federal Protective Service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Christmas greetings from WikiProject Holidays![edit]

Christmas-Wikipedia-logo.png
Merry Christmas and Happy New year

Hello! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2020 on the behalf of Christmas task force of WikiProject Holidays.


It is a time for forgetting the past and celebrate a new start. May every day of the forthcoming year glow with good cheers and happiness!





Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Holidays and its related projects. © Copyleft 2019

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Embassy of France, Washington, D.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalorama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Hi, Neutrality! Do you ever close merger proposals? I ask because there is a DYK nomination that is on hold until Talk:Death of Jeffrey Epstein#Merger proposal is closed. The proposal been open since mid November and the last comment was 8 days ago. (I see there is an enormous backlog of such proposals; I should probably try to close a few myself.) AFAICT you have not had any input at either of the relevant articles. I have, so I can't close it myself. If this isn't something you do, or feel like doing, never mind; I'll ask someone else. BTW happy new year! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I found the place where I can post requests for closure. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, MelanieN. Looks like someone else has handled it. Neutralitytalk 18:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Assistance in finding wikiproject / editors[edit]

There are several academic journals that systemically feature pieces about European elections and yearly political developments:

  • The journal West European Politics, e.g.[1]
  • The ECPR Political Data Yearbook[2]
  • Scandinavian Political Studies, e.g.[3]

Maybe there is some WikiProject that should be made aware of these resources and/or editors who systemically edit this kind of content into articles (I've noticed that some editors do the hard work of adding new elections and election results). I usually add these resources in when I stumble upon them, but maybe there should be a systemic effort. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, although I'm not sure how active it is. Number 57, I know you edit in election articles, so perhaps this might be of interest to you? Neutralitytalk 21:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. We have a page for election resources here, so please do add them to it. Although there's not much discussion on the project talk page, there are plenty of active editors who should see any messages left there. Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all, I added those resources to that list. Hope they'll be of use. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Re your message to me. Sorry about that. I wasn't aware of most of those rules. Or your definition of 'climate change denial' as a 'fringe theory'.

In any case, I am not a 'climate change denier'. Climate is not constant. It has never been constant. I hold no particular opinions on the possible causes of observed recent changes, other than that there may nothing that anyone can effectively do about it at this point, or in the immediately-foreseeable future, and that more effort should be directed towards mitigating the consequences of that for actual people on the ground, and tackling the political and practical implications of what may be necessary mass-migrations of adversely-affected populations. However, I do dispute assertions like "the science is in on climate change and so climate change theory cannot be queried or disputed by anyone". And I especially object to climate change fascists demonising and trying to get professional or criminal sanctions imposed on anyone who questions their dogma or seeks to research anything that may bring any aspect of it into question. Most civilised countries still have laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom of scientific inquiry. Speaking as an actual scientist (B.Sc.(hons), M.Sc., Physics major, and more than 30 years' professional experience in the field of air polution monitoring, meteorology, monitoring equipment and sensors, and data logging, analysis and reporting), let me say this: THE SCIENCE IS NEVER 'IN'. We don't know everything. ANY scientific theory or accepted law can be queried by anyone. If someone wants to look into any aspect of any of those laws or theories, he/she is entirely welcome to do so. If they turn-up any new evidence, or have developed a new theory, then they are welcome to present it for peer review and no-one has any right to stop them doing that. If that new information or theory can be proven to be incorrect, then it will be disregarded. But if it proves to be correct, and even if that means that we have to accept that a current theory or law is inadequate or wrong, then so be it. The science will be changed to take that new information or theory into account. That is what real science is all about.

I don't believe that I specifically accused another editor of being a 'sock puppet'. I merely pointed to the rapidity with which all attempts to edit the Jo Nova entry were repeatedly reversed by two editors in particular (Snoogumsnoogums and Slywriter) - so not entirely without evidence, that is clearly indicated in the edit history - and suggested the possibility that one of them may be a 'sock puppet'. Slywriter quickly pointed-out that he was not. Apologies there if that post was genuine.

Re terms like 'climate change denier' and 'pseudoscience'. You do well to try to discourage their use as they have becomes terms of insult and abuse and can cause serious offense. Those terms were not originally in the article on Jo Nova. Again, look back through the edit history list. Someone (I suspect a climate change activist) put them into that article, as well as a couple of other edits that clearly turn the article into a personal attack on Ms Codling and an attempt to belittle her and her work. Attempts by myself and other editors to remove those offensive terms and return the article's wording to the neutral tone that any entry in a scientific/encyclopaedic publication should have, have been quickly reversed by the two above editors in particular during the last twelve months. I have complained to Snoogumsnoogums about his and Slywriter's rapid and repeated reversals of my attempted edit and so far recieved only what amounts to a smug "Tough! Don't care. I'm just going to keep doing it" response from Slywriter.

I've expressed my opinions to Snoogumsnoogums on how two or more people (or one person with a couple of 'sock puppets') with a personal, political or philosophical axe to grind can easily abuse the system, alter articles to suit their own opinions and gang-up-on any dissenting single editor who tries to do something about it, by rapidly and repeatedly 'undoing' his edits, as appears to be happening here. Beyond that, I'm not inclined to take the matter any further, given what I've seen so far about how things work in here. I give up and won't bother with any further attempts to edit/correct Wikepedia entries. The bullies and thugs have won. I'm out of here.

Real Scientist b (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Use the Article's talk page, rather than spreading discussion across various user's talk pages. Changes must be supported by Sources. Or lack there of. Changing language come across as whitewashing, not good faith editing.
And do not continue your crusade of calling me a sock puppet. You have now used the term on two different users pages about me. I am me, just me. Snoogs and I don't know each other beyond sheer coincidence of editing the same articles. Not even sure if we are the same gender or species. If you wish to continue you this, we can head over to SPI and see whose using multiple accounts because the edits on Ms. Nova's page are remarkably identical from various IP and new users. Along with your extensive knowledge of procedures despite a one day old account with less than ten edits.Slywriter (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tom Railsback[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 27 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tom Railsback, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pete Stark[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 30 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pete Stark, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

To do list remove request (your edit)[edit]

Please delete the "To do" list you placed in this edit Revision as of 20:10, 9 October 2004 on Talk:Ogopogo. It never had any "to do" elements but does have two bad external links, which likely worked in 2004. It's been up nearly 16 years. I guess editors have been afraid to remove it because of your admin status. Feel free to delete this post once done. Thanks. 5Q5| 13:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. 5Q5| 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Progressive reactionary[edit]

Hi Neutrality. I came across this user talk page via WP:ANI#You **** fuck. This editor doesn't seem to be very interested in using his user talk page for UNBLOCK, but rather just for trying to re-argue whatever thing got them blocked in the first place. Maybe it would be best to take away the account's TPA before any more drama get's stirred up on that talk page. There are already accusations of SOCK being made which is only likely going to further encourage more back-and-forth arguing on that page. Might be best for everyone just to move on and let the account deal with UTRS if they want to get unblocked. SPIs or whatever can be started as needed, but none the relevant issues are unlikely even going to be resolved by trying to engage this editor on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly: I've revoked talk page access. Thanks. --Neutralitytalk 16:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bangkok Post edit[edit]

Re: Media Bias/Fact Check: What does this mean: "remove self-published material - not RS"? Seligne (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It means it is not a reliable source - see WP:RS - it’s merely someone’s self-published website. Neutralitytalk 08:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

By that standard I guess we could say that The Washington Post is self-published by Jeff Bezos. Thanks, Seligne (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Seligne: No. See WP:SELFPUBLISH if you would like more information on what "self-published" means. Neutralitytalk 22:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality: Thanks for the link, which I read and understand. I guess you will put Media Bias/Fact Check on the list of self-published sites? Seligne (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Seligne: I don't believe there is a formal, exhaustive list of self-published sites, since they are innumerable. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re yogurt[edit]

In the original yogurt article it says; "His ally Suleiman the Magnificent sent a doctor, who allegedly cured the patient with yogurt."

Allegedly is implying that the yogurt only helped the king by chance/placebo? The cites I added were to indicate that it wasn't all placebo/luck. --Disoff (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Am i suppose to ask you about this on your talk page, the yogurt talk page or somewhere else? --Disoff (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The cites you added don't mention the French king, hence WP:SYNTH. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay. The original yogurt article says; "His ally Suleiman the Magnificent sent a doctor, who allegedly cured the patient with yogurt.[20][21]" We have to assume that 20/21 did actually say something that meant "allegedly"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disoff (talkcontribs) 20:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't access the cites at 20/21, but I assume so. Neutralitytalk 21:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Lori Saine[edit]

I am trying to change her page with evidence that the existing claims against her are wrong. I have paraphrased the evidence, and provided cites.

I have also produced evidence of her voting record, publicly available.

All of this continues to be deleted for reasons I don't understand. I have complied with the copyright requirements.

What am I doing wrong, specifically?

Joe

Joe1jackson (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

if you read the policy links that I shared on your talk page, I think things will become clearer to you. Neutralitytalk 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)