User talk:Σύνταξις

January 2019
Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to History of abortion seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply
What did I write that was non-factual? Σύνταξις (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The language you used was value-laden and does not comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification
Forgive me, really. But I sincerely still do not understand how a fact can be value-laden. I read the neutrality language page you linked to. Can you point out what part of that my edits are inconsistent with? I honestly didn’t see how it is.

Also, in that line of reasoning, wouldn’t these lines from the page also be considered value-laden, since they actually state that the salient cause of women suffering from illegal abortions was not their choice to seek it, but the law against it? “India enforced the Indian Penal Code from 1860 to 1971, criminalizing abortion and punishing both the practitioners and the women who sought out the procedure.[147] As a result, countless women died in an attempt to obtain illegal abortions from unqualified midwives and "doctors".”

Thanks so much for helping me understand Wikipedia policy/culture. I appreciate it. Σύνταξις (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure if I need to tag you on this, GorillaWarfare.

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:GorillaWarfare, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not edit other people's comments. Jorm (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good to know. Thanks for telling me. Will keep that in mind. I hope you also keep in mind that Wikipedia should be a safe place to ask questions without being shamed by belittling epithets like “pal” in the way you used it. We should be friendly. Wouldn’t you agree?
 * The word "pal" is not belittling, so I'm really confused about where you're coming from with that. Either way: I don't care, just don't edit other people's comments.--Jorm (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Jorm, I really didn’t think you’d try to dodge it like that. I thought maybe you’d try to justify it. But I honestly was hoping you might just own it and learn from it. Too bad. Maybe next time. It’s been interesting Jorm, but unless you’re going to actually answer my question about where my (acknowledged) facts contradict the NPOV guidelines (instead of just trying to side-step the question with a belittling tone), I’m not sure you’re comments are helpful. Hopefully that will change.
 * I'm "justifying it" by saying "I have no idea why you think that word is belittling". I absolutely own my language.  Your edits to that article were not facts; they were ideological interpretations.  If you don't understand that, you may find that you don't have sufficient competence to edit Wikipedia, especially in contentious areas.--Jorm (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Jorm, I hope you can learn to say what you mean and mean what you say and not pretend it’s something else when someone calls you on it. It’s really not becoming. Look. I don’t want to hurt your pride any more, so it’s probably better if I don’t respond to you anymore. If you reply, I’ll just let you have the last word. But hopefully you’ll think about it on your own and use it as an opportunity to grow. As for whether my edits were facts, simply asserting they are not facts doesn’t change the fact that they are facts. Peace out hommie.
 * You are not stating facts. You are using value-laden, non-neutral language in Wikipedia's voice. Not cool. This is not an anti-abortion blog. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, the admin that brought this up disagrees with you and wrote, “The issue with your edit to History of abortion is not that it was non-factual...” And what is not cool is to continually ignore the substantive question I’m raising. I suppose that’s what you have to do when you don’t have a substantive answer. But I’m getting a pretty clear picture of what’s going on here. The enforced idea of “neutral” is applied one-sidedly. I honestly hope you guys develope some better critical thinking skills and gain some better self-awareness of your inconsistencies. In any case, you won’t be hearing from me anymore. Feel free to continue using this “conversation” page as an echo-chamber. I leave you to your sinking (sunken?) ship that you seem bent on steering into the icebergs.

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to Abortion
--Jorm (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)