User talk:Kalbome22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:13, 6 November 2024

August 2024

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 00:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Kalbome22 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of the annexation of crimea is not an "opinion". 2001:99A:2054:E900:ECFB:6F44:22:B6C1 (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement violates Wikipedia's policies by using the term "illegal annexation," which reflects a specific political stance rather than a neutral description. Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), meaning that articles should present facts impartially and avoid language that indicates bias. The term "illegal" conveys a judgment about the annexation's legality, which can mislead readers and fails to provide a balanced view of the issue. Kalbome22 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term illegal is all over the article about the illegal annexation. Your point makes no sense. 2001:99A:2054:E900:ECFB:6F44:22:B6C1 (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also stating the factual legality is not a "political stance", it's just stating the legality. US Political style discourse has clearly invaded Wikipedia editorial styles. 2001:99A:2054:E900:ECFB:6F44:22:B6C1 (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the term "illegal" might appear frequently in articles about contentious issues. However, Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires that language reflect a neutral stance, even if certain terms are commonly used in discussions about the topic. Using terms like "illegal annexation" can suggest a particular judgment and bias, which might influence readers’ perceptions. Instead, Wikipedia aims to describe the situation in a way that presents multiple perspectives without endorsing a specific viewpoint. To adhere to NPOV, it’s important to provide balanced coverage and use neutral language, even if it means adjusting or clarifying terminology that might imply a specific stance. Kalbome22 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And last point, the current form of the article misleads readers as it leaves room to interpret that Crimea was somehow legally annexed. 2001:99A:2054:E900:ECFB:6F44:22:B6C1 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "illegal annexation" may lead readers to assume the annexation was universally recognized as unlawful without presenting differing viewpoints or the complexity of international legal opinions on the matter. Kalbome22 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urban Realism (August 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Utopes were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

The comment the reviewer left was:

One source is insufficient; the single paragraph is just about as long as a dictionary definition, and would require more sources and content before being published.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Urban Realism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kalbome22! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urban Realism 2 (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Urban Realism, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Urban Realism 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Urban Realism has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Urban Realism. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Urban Realism has been accepted

Urban Realism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Recon rabbit 17:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerning election predictions

The accuracy of The Keys to the White House in predicting the elections of 2000 and 2016 has been the subject of extensive discussion on that Talk page and elsewhere. In the published sources, opinions differ. Wikipedia therefore cannot take a position and endorse one side or the other, as your edit to Allan Lichtman did.

I'm restoring the more neutral wording that emerged from extensive discussion. Please don't change this language without discussing it and explaining your position. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 17:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesMLane Thanks for letting me know. You are referring to where I linked pseduoscientfic in the key article? Kalbome22 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote, I hadn't seen that, but, yeah, "pseudoscientific" is obviously POV. I was referring to your edit to Allan Lichtman that referred to the accuracy of the system in 2000 and 2016. See here for an explanation of the differing assessments, in the published sources, of those two years. JamesMLane t c 17:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should include it and say it is disputed by Lichtman and media sources. It seems like a very important fact to exclude from the intro especially with the recent failure. Kalbome22 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say "The fact is that Lichtman got 2000 wrong but he disputes it" or "The fact is that Lichtman got 2016 wrong but he disputes it." That would violate a core Wikipedia policy -- neutrality. We have to report the dispute, not engage in it.

The best way to handle it in the bio article would be a brief summary, with a link to the relevant and neutral section of the Keys article. (See WP:SS for a general discussion of this approach.) Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no such relevant and neutral section to link to. In the meantime, we have to resist the temptation to try to cram every bit of information into the introductory section. We settled on "high degree of accuracy" because it's undisputed that he's usually been right. Any reader wanting more detail can follow the wikilink to the "child" article. JamesMLane t c 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesMLane I don't see how mentioning that he got the outcome wrong wouldn't be neutral. To exclude the information would be misleading, especially because it says that he has accurately predicted every election when he has not, regardless of the circumstances. Kalbome22 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's because "the outcome" isn't unambiguous. The main POVs are that he got 2000 right and 2016 wrong, or that he got 2000 wrong and 2016 right, or that he got both right. If you check [the link I provided, you'll see that each of these POVs has support from a reliable source. That's why endorsing any of them, in Wikipedia's voice, would violate WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 19:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ::::The best way to handle it in the bio article would be a brief summary, with a link to the relevant and neutral section of the Keys article.  (See [[WP:SS]] for a general discussion of this approach.)  Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no such relevant and neutral section to link to.  In the meantime, we have to resist the temptation to try to cram every bit of information into the introductory section.  We settled on "high degree of accuracy" because it's undisputed that he's ''usually'' been right.  Any reader wanting more detail can follow the wikilink to the "child" article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
 :::::@[[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] I don't see how mentioning that he got the outcome wrong wouldn't be neutral. To exclude the information would be misleading, especially because it says that he has accurately predicted every election when he has not, regardless of the circumstances. [[User:Kalbome22|Kalbome22]] ([[User talk:Kalbome22#top|talk]]) 19:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::It's because "the outcome" isn't unambiguous.  The main POVs are that he got 2000 right and 2016 wrong, or that he got 2000 wrong and 2016 right, or that he got both right.  If you check [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Keys_to_the_White_House&oldid=1255389609#Popular_vote_versus_electoral_vote the link] I provided, you'll see that each of these POVs has support from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]].  That's why endorsing any of them, in Wikipedia's voice, would violate [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 19:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)