Epicvision

Welcome!

Hello, Epicvision, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mindmatrix 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article neutrality

It appears you are trying to add information to the article Eddie Francis which violates several Wikipedia policies. First, please familiarise yourself with the policy regarding biographies of living persons. Also read about Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The edits you've made here and here seem to indicate that you're trying to present a biased version of accounts. I'm making this statement based on articles which have appeared in the Windsor Star, specifically:

• Smear targets Francis
• Integrity watchdog clears mayor
• Mayor's conduct is ... exemplary': Basse

If you continue to present such a biased perspective on that article, you may have yourediting privileges suspended per Wikipedia policy. Mindmatrix 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, What did I write that was incorrect? Did the integrity commissioner not conclude his 16 month investigation in November? I do not know what your problem is with what I wrote. If you were to read what is on the Eddie Francis page and were well enough educated in the poltics of Windsor you'd realize that everything on the page is biased and candy coated without providing the complete story of the mayor's tenure. By invlving yourself in the manner in which you deny a neutral but more widely accurate listing of events, you are doing a disservice to the purpose of Wikipedia.

How am I to provide an accurate portrait?(Epicvision (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

I can likewise ask the following: what did PKT write that was incorrect? You reverted his edits twice, here and here. The point is, you want to include information about an investigation into his conduct, but you have twice removed the results of that investigation. This is a clear attempt to mislead the reader, and is a form of bias. If you want to add information to the article, write it in a neutral fashion - Wikipedia does not take a position or offer an opinion on any of the subjects for which it has an article. (BTW: this doesn't imply no negative material can be included in articles, only that it must have objective coverage.) Mindmatrix 14:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The information provided by PKT included details that the Integrity Commissioner does not have a mandate to provide under the Ontario Municple Act 2006. The commish cannot make a judgement as to whether the mayor's actions were commendable or not. Just if they violated the Act or not. Simply "Yes" or "No".

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy has to be equally administered toward candy-coated propaganda as well as harshly critical viewpoints. It's tough to do when a living figure is as controversial as Windsor's mayor.

I'd ask that my edit be reinstated, at least in part. The information was not incorrect, and was neutral wording. It's really in conjunction with the edit of PKT that causes concern. (Epicvision (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

As I've said, omission of the results of the investigation is biased. If you don't like PKT's wording, then offer an alternative. In one of the stories from the Windsor Star (Integrity watchdog clears mayor), there is the statement that Francis "is cleared of any allegations". That's neutral, descriptive, and accurate. Mindmatrix 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)