|
Hi PolNewsReaderWiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hey there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've made changes to some of your additions because they struck me as overly promotional in tone. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks! Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Safehaven86, thank you for your note. I hear you and respect your experience on such matters. I lack time to get into all this. I think there is a balance between no information and promotion. So let's try to strike that. Just place back as it was a week ago, before I touched this page. Yet I corrected many factual errors and added detail, as I did with other pages. In my humble view, you are deleting content that was there that was informative, before I touched the page, and you are adding in factual errors--for example, based on your misreading of the NY Times marriage announcement and birth. I also find you added links that are poor selections and hardly objective and, above all, not authoritative sources on the material you mean to substantiate by having a reference. Still, I don't want to dwell on this page. There is a fair middle ground. I think it's important to rightly cite these reporters books, and if something favorable stated in describing them, no reason not to cite. As it serves audience. See my addition on Chris Cillizza and his book as well--for a small and quick example--and let me know if you take issue with that. I also think you cut interesting details but add in other details in a selective manner. So I cut all just to have less information to avoid disagreement.
But big picture, I see that my trying to do this, and fix errors becomes needlessly time consuming as one must correct corrections that include errors. Ugh. Anyway, I still hear you. You make wise and great points. Middle ground on description foremost, but the corrections need to be accurate too and perhaps, if I dare say, need not make the content boring. But I think the lesson for me is, it's a losing proposition to try to make some of these wiki pages on political subjects more accurate and also more interesting to read. Again, just too time consuming amid the need to make corrections of corrections with errors, etc.
- Why did you remove that Kuhn is an alum of the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire? It is sourced to the New York Times. Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I deleted that line because you deleted certain facts that are more relevant, but added in (the factual errors you made aside) other older and more tangential facts. I see this as creating a selectivity bias. For example, you deleted what the Wiki editor wrote, who worked this page before me placed in, including what General Wesley Clark said about this subject’s first book. Thus to accommodate your desire to much to assure no hint of promotion, I parsed down the entire page to bare-bones facts, which I think dis-serves the audience but at least moots the disagreement. Less is less, but at least less means that there is less to disagree over.
For political figures—whether politicians, strategists, or reporters—I think it’s more relevant what they do professionally. If you cut the professional details and add in academic detail, you emphasize the academic, which makes sense for professors but is entirely moot among professionals in politics.
Anyway, again, this is getting tiresome. Let’s simplify: see the change I made to Chris Cillizza’s page, where I added in his book and quoted Chuck Todd on that book. I think this addition serves audience. But if you want to keep the addition of the book but cut the description—because you think one should just note book titles and not describe—okay. I disagree but you are the veteran of Wiki. I can fix errors from prior Wiki editors and add citations across Cillizza’s page and others of this profession, but I hesitate because you took issue with what was done to this smaller page.
I do think one can get too OCD on all of this. In my view, the emphasis should be on accuracy and dispassionate description, but not at the cost of interesting description, hence creating bland description. That said, far more substantial issues on other pages for political subjects that are actually non sourced, wrongly done or actually controversial. Waste of time to dwell here. ///
Dear Safehaven86,
First, I notice you request others to notify you on the talk page before changes are made, but you do not practice the same. This is in keeping with what, unfortunately, seems like your general approach to Wiki. Thus groan. I have to run in 15 mins. But I’ll quickly explain why I reversed your version—yet still used some you wanted still in--if not for you, but because I think it’s important for other editors to see.
Let me say, the worst part here is that you initially made some good points, on parsing down. I immediately heeded. But then I realized you had a greater slant.
1) A week ago, I noted to you, Safehaven86, in this space the other political journalists I edited and added similar additions, in part, to see if your issues were biased toward this author or more broad. Since you have ignored the other examples, and fixate on this page, the evidence (among other points) leads me to believe you have a peculiar bias toward this subject. Because, let me note—again—I added nothing on this page that is any different than what I did to other political journalists’ pages, including Chris Cillizza, Jules Witcover, Chuck Todd, etc.
2) Wiki Consensus is based on, for one, what has stood for years. If you did your research and respected prior editors, you would have seen that six years ago the first editors who created this page decided on a consensus language around the description of this author’s first book, the Neglected Voter. You have scrubbed their language. I restored that description in its entirety and only spent the time to find and add the best sources, when I updated everything else on the page that was incorrect. Notably, consensus is not based on what any one user dictates and it certainly does not excuse scrubbing accurate material that was precedent for years.
3) You have a past of inserting errors on this page. For example, birth location. I don’t know where this subject was born. But clearly you misread that NY Times marriage article and assumed a fact that is not stated. You realized that and stopped. The error is not the issue. The issue is that your error exhibits the cavalier way in which you read your sources and edit on Wiki. That’s unbecoming of someone who edits on Wiki.
4) A good biography is not written chronologically or with mere facts, especially in the intro. The way you wish to edit is robotic. I have read this author. I could go into detail and explain these books. I decided to update his page when I read his novel. Yes, I thought his novel was really powerful, moving, and foremost, an indictment of the establishment in politics and media (which I think is most important). BUT, I kept all my personal views off the Wiki page. I did not touch the language around the first book. I added the most neutral description of the novel. Still, I wrote the biography intro and books section as one should—with the recent first, notable first, and not as if you are a bot. And I used impeccable sources throughout. Again, I also respected what was there before me.
4) You have a peculiar choice of sources. Begin with the initial bio references. Instead of actual biographical references, such as the bios I used from RealClearPolitics and Huffington Post, you chose a random polling article, among thousands of articles, that was not even about the book you reference (or the subject matter of the book). It’s telling that you do not seem to realize the difference. And note the sources you cut: Economist, Time magazine, and the Washington Times. Again, these are hardly the actions of someone who understands sourcing, objectivity or the subject matter at hand. For goodness sake, Time actually employs fact checkers. The Economist, Time magazine, and the Washington Times actually wrote about the book or the subject matter in the book, citing the book, with authors having obviously read it.
At first, when I encountered you on Wiki, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. And amid your bullying, I was also just going to let you have your way, and stop editing on Wiki, because it’s not worth dealing with those who troll certain subjects with bias, especially when they clearly don’t have a background in those subjects. I realize even hinting submission to you was a mistake. It made you more high-handed. Again, it’s amazing that you make updates without notification on talk page but ask others to.
I won’t waste time getting into all these explanations again with you. It appears you wish to troll this subject—again, exhibited by scrutiny here that you do not display elsewhere, and your peculiar sourcing behavior. That’s not the biggest deal. I’m sure the subject will eventually notice, and he can defend himself. But it illustrates your bias, which comes with the Internet. For me, however, personally, I take offense at your high handedness. I also think while there are MUCH worse trolls, and yours is only subtle, careless, and evidently the work of a political dilatant, it’s important one takes a stand on the small issues to avoid the big ones.
More so, I looked up your bio. You note your specialty is pop culture, in what you read. I would never edit figures in that world unless I really knew them, had seen all their films, read all their scripts, etc. Wiki is best served by those who truly know their material. I see this talent everywhere on Wiki. It’s why I love most of the editors here! : )
Even from the editing I’ve done thus far, for political figures and journalists, you can tell that I have a particular focus. I am constantly updating these people’s bios, with their current titles, key missing facts, and newer books, because I know this material. Politics is my forte. I’ve only begun. I’ll continue updating subject’s pages, and defending those subjects from biased editing. Your high handedness and bias, frankly, has helped me realize the need.
Safehaven86, you also note your gender in your bio. I too am a woman. But I don’t think it serves us lady Wikis to claim the men on this page bully--as you do claim--when you appear to act in the very negative fashion you pin on men. You undermine valid concerns. And I must say, that’s also why I’m offended by your attitude. I see a bully who claims the shield of a victim, which actually inspired me to be more active here. I guess that much is a good thing.
- PolNewsReaderWiki
- Just saw this, and frankly, TL;DR. Please keep discussion about article content to relevant article talk pages. If you have an issue with my conduct, please report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so the issue can be resolved by the community. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
MopSeeker. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
MopSeeker
Fox
Three! 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PolNewsReaderWiki. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
|
|
Hi PolNewsReaderWiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hey there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've made changes to some of your additions because they struck me as overly promotional in tone. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks! Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Safehaven86, thank you for your note. I hear you and respect your experience on such matters. I lack time to get into all this. I think there is a balance between no information and promotion. So let's try to strike that. Just place back as it was a week ago, before I touched this page. Yet I corrected many factual errors and added detail, as I did with other pages. In my humble view, you are deleting content that was there that was informative, before I touched the page, and you are adding in factual errors--for example, based on your misreading of the NY Times marriage announcement and birth. I also find you added links that are poor selections and hardly objective and, above all, not authoritative sources on the material you mean to substantiate by having a reference. Still, I don't want to dwell on this page. There is a fair middle ground. I think it's important to rightly cite these reporters books, and if something favorable stated in describing them, no reason not to cite. As it serves audience. See my addition on Chris Cillizza and his book as well--for a small and quick example--and let me know if you take issue with that. I also think you cut interesting details but add in other details in a selective manner. So I cut all just to have less information to avoid disagreement.
But big picture, I see that my trying to do this, and fix errors becomes needlessly time consuming as one must correct corrections that include errors. Ugh. Anyway, I still hear you. You make wise and great points. Middle ground on description foremost, but the corrections need to be accurate too and perhaps, if I dare say, need not make the content boring. But I think the lesson for me is, it's a losing proposition to try to make some of these wiki pages on political subjects more accurate and also more interesting to read. Again, just too time consuming amid the need to make corrections of corrections with errors, etc.
- Why did you remove that Kuhn is an alum of the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire? It is sourced to the New York Times. Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I deleted that line because you deleted certain facts that are more relevant, but added in (the factual errors you made aside) other older and more tangential facts. I see this as creating a selectivity bias. For example, you deleted what the Wiki editor wrote, who worked this page before me placed in, including what General Wesley Clark said about this subject’s first book. Thus to accommodate your desire to much to assure no hint of promotion, I parsed down the entire page to bare-bones facts, which I think dis-serves the audience but at least moots the disagreement. Less is less, but at least less means that there is less to disagree over.
For political figures—whether politicians, strategists, or reporters—I think it’s more relevant what they do professionally. If you cut the professional details and add in academic detail, you emphasize the academic, which makes sense for professors but is entirely moot among professionals in politics.
Anyway, again, this is getting tiresome. Let’s simplify: see the change I made to Chris Cillizza’s page, where I added in his book and quoted Chuck Todd on that book. I think this addition serves audience. But if you want to keep the addition of the book but cut the description—because you think one should just note book titles and not describe—okay. I disagree but you are the veteran of Wiki. I can fix errors from prior Wiki editors and add citations across Cillizza’s page and others of this profession, but I hesitate because you took issue with what was done to this smaller page.
I do think one can get too OCD on all of this. In my view, the emphasis should be on accuracy and dispassionate description, but not at the cost of interesting description, hence creating bland description. That said, far more substantial issues on other pages for political subjects that are actually non sourced, wrongly done or actually controversial. Waste of time to dwell here. ///
Dear Safehaven86,
First, I notice you request others to notify you on the talk page before changes are made, but you do not practice the same. This is in keeping with what, unfortunately, seems like your general approach to Wiki. Thus groan. I have to run in 15 mins. But I’ll quickly explain why I reversed your version—yet still used some you wanted still in--if not for you, but because I think it’s important for other editors to see.
Let me say, the worst part here is that you initially made some good points, on parsing down. I immediately heeded. But then I realized you had a greater slant.
1) A week ago, I noted to you, Safehaven86, in this space the other political journalists I edited and added similar additions, in part, to see if your issues were biased toward this author or more broad. Since you have ignored the other examples, and fixate on this page, the evidence (among other points) leads me to believe you have a peculiar bias toward this subject. Because, let me note—again—I added nothing on this page that is any different than what I did to other political journalists’ pages, including Chris Cillizza, Jules Witcover, Chuck Todd, etc.
2) Wiki Consensus is based on, for one, what has stood for years. If you did your research and respected prior editors, you would have seen that six years ago the first editors who created this page decided on a consensus language around the description of this author’s first book, the Neglected Voter. You have scrubbed their language. I restored that description in its entirety and only spent the time to find and add the best sources, when I updated everything else on the page that was incorrect. Notably, consensus is not based on what any one user dictates and it certainly does not excuse scrubbing accurate material that was precedent for years.
3) You have a past of inserting errors on this page. For example, birth location. I don’t know where this subject was born. But clearly you misread that NY Times marriage article and assumed a fact that is not stated. You realized that and stopped. The error is not the issue. The issue is that your error exhibits the cavalier way in which you read your sources and edit on Wiki. That’s unbecoming of someone who edits on Wiki.
4) A good biography is not written chronologically or with mere facts, especially in the intro. The way you wish to edit is robotic. I have read this author. I could go into detail and explain these books. I decided to update his page when I read his novel. Yes, I thought his novel was really powerful, moving, and foremost, an indictment of the establishment in politics and media (which I think is most important). BUT, I kept all my personal views off the Wiki page. I did not touch the language around the first book. I added the most neutral description of the novel. Still, I wrote the biography intro and books section as one should—with the recent first, notable first, and not as if you are a bot. And I used impeccable sources throughout. Again, I also respected what was there before me.
4) You have a peculiar choice of sources. Begin with the initial bio references. Instead of actual biographical references, such as the bios I used from RealClearPolitics and Huffington Post, you chose a random polling article, among thousands of articles, that was not even about the book you reference (or the subject matter of the book). It’s telling that you do not seem to realize the difference. And note the sources you cut: Economist, Time magazine, and the Washington Times. Again, these are hardly the actions of someone who understands sourcing, objectivity or the subject matter at hand. For goodness sake, Time actually employs fact checkers. The Economist, Time magazine, and the Washington Times actually wrote about the book or the subject matter in the book, citing the book, with authors having obviously read it.
At first, when I encountered you on Wiki, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. And amid your bullying, I was also just going to let you have your way, and stop editing on Wiki, because it’s not worth dealing with those who troll certain subjects with bias, especially when they clearly don’t have a background in those subjects. I realize even hinting submission to you was a mistake. It made you more high-handed. Again, it’s amazing that you make updates without notification on talk page but ask others to.
I won’t waste time getting into all these explanations again with you. It appears you wish to troll this subject—again, exhibited by scrutiny here that you do not display elsewhere, and your peculiar sourcing behavior. That’s not the biggest deal. I’m sure the subject will eventually notice, and he can defend himself. But it illustrates your bias, which comes with the Internet. For me, however, personally, I take offense at your high handedness. I also think while there are MUCH worse trolls, and yours is only subtle, careless, and evidently the work of a political dilatant, it’s important one takes a stand on the small issues to avoid the big ones.
More so, I looked up your bio. You note your specialty is pop culture, in what you read. I would never edit figures in that world unless I really knew them, had seen all their films, read all their scripts, etc. Wiki is best served by those who truly know their material. I see this talent everywhere on Wiki. It’s why I love most of the editors here! : )
Even from the editing I’ve done thus far, for political figures and journalists, you can tell that I have a particular focus. I am constantly updating these people’s bios, with their current titles, key missing facts, and newer books, because I know this material. Politics is my forte. I’ve only begun. I’ll continue updating subject’s pages, and defending those subjects from biased editing. Your high handedness and bias, frankly, has helped me realize the need.
Safehaven86, you also note your gender in your bio. I too am a woman. But I don’t think it serves us lady Wikis to claim the men on this page bully--as you do claim--when you appear to act in the very negative fashion you pin on men. You undermine valid concerns. And I must say, that’s also why I’m offended by your attitude. I see a bully who claims the shield of a victim, which actually inspired me to be more active here. I guess that much is a good thing.
- PolNewsReaderWiki
- Just saw this, and frankly, TL;DR. Please keep discussion about article content to relevant article talk pages. If you have an issue with my conduct, please report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so the issue can be resolved by the community. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
MopSeeker. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks!
MopSeeker
Fox
Three! 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PolNewsReaderWiki. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)