Kwwhit5531

WP:NPOV

I'm curious, given your comments regarding WP:NPOV: the reason Wikipedia values neutrality is because of very emotional issues like this and just trying to maintain a neutral tone. You do know that by neutrally reflecting what the sources say, the end result is not necessarily a neutral article? For example, if the majority viewpoint of reliable sources say that Hitler was bad, we are also supposed to say Hitler was bad? Which means we are supposed to reflect the POV of the sources, instead of introducing our own POV (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic). starship.paint (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think? I was simply try to dissuade someone from engaging in an edit war. I'm not sure what your driving at or implying. To answer your hypothetical question directly though, I think we should never say anyone is "bad", we should describe the subject (Hitler) in the most accurate way, including his actions and experiences (early life, art carer, military career, joining NSDAP, the beer hall putsch, imprisonment and writing of Mein Kempf, chancellorship, War against Poland, start of WW2, Holocaust, war crimes, suicide, etc), nothing that I mentioned in parethenses is an opinion, these are facts of history (despite what say holocaust deniers would suggest), and could verified by newspaper accounts, films, radio reports, official documents, personal diaries, etc, from both the Allies, the Axis, and the Comintern. At the end we should have section titled something like "Legacy" or "Modern Historical views" which discusses and cite opinions from a wide range of modern historians as well as modern and scientific polling data (up to the standards of say Gallup or the Pew Research Center) on current public views of the subject and his place in history. Finally we should briefly mention, in this specific case, the views of fringe groups such as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, historical revisionists (note I'm referring specifically to Historical negationism, such as HIAG, not the field of historiographical revisionism), etc (citing their own works, as well as mainstream recent reporting on their beliefs). To put this bluntly I would like you to clarify what you were asking and respond to my answer, I think its only polite as I answered your question in depth and believe its only fair to given the same compliment. Thanks --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kwwhit5531. I was just seeking your understanding of WP:NPOV. I believe you have answered that. To explain, I’ve seen several who visit Wikipedia insisting that we be neutral, in the sense that they believe NPOV means that our articles should not even have any POV. Clearly, you do not hold that opinion. I hope that this is a satisfactory answer, there’s really nothing more than that. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough the first time around, and I hope that you are not offended by my query. starship.paint (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I took it a little personally, though I try not to do that typically, I think I was just surprised. Thanks for responding and I'm certainly satisfied with your response and sorry for taking it a bit personally. P.S just saw your other question, due to an edit conflict, haven't gotten a chance to check the text you mention, but I'll go ahead and say I would never intentionally plagiarize an article and know how to cite articles with quotes. Let me check the edit and I'll give you an answer ASAP--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, it’s nothing. Re-reading my first edit, seemed a bit... questioning. Though I didn’t mean anything personal, it could have indeed come off that way. Cheers! starship.paint (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I swear I'm usually a pretty calm person! If you find me doing anything wrong, don't let my above response dissuade you from bringing it to my attention, I think the best way to learn is from mistakes, so I don't usually mind a little help on that front. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit

Regarding [1] the added text - this looks like a copy and paste from the New York Times source? That would be a WP:COPYVIO? Did you get the text from another editor? starship.paint (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, that text was from a non registered editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:CD23:1200:2DF3:3369:56D6:B50D), it was initially reverted, I believe due to lack of sources, I added it back in with sources (here, note this is not chronological, check edit history for the revert [2]), here's my edit summary "added back information on Arbery's past convictions (added sources though unlike the original editor). Please note while one may at first glance argue this is irrelevant info, you need only glance at Barnhill's recusal letter to understand it is relevant to his decision not to bring immediate charges resulting in his subsequent recusal and the appointment of current D.A Durden. Also please provide a quick edit summary in the future".

Okay cool. I agree that this information is important. I’ll get an admin to excise the IP’s copyvio. starship.paint (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:M1841 Mississippi rifle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:M1841 Mississippi rifle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)