User talk:209.150.60.105

On edit summaries and neutrality
Hello! I'm Roxy.

When writing an edit summary, describing your change as "making it more [correct / true / right / etc.]" will probably raise some eyebrows from other editors. While you may be very confident that your edits exclusively contain The Truth, Wikipedia aims to create articles which are not only true, but verifiable. In order to be most useful (and not attract unwanted suspicion), your edit summary should directly describe your changes, rather than assert that you're right. Any claims which are likely to be challenged must be cited to reliable sources.

The current scientific consensus is that masks are substantially effective in preventing the transmission of COVID-19. As such, Scott Atlas's claims to the contrary are demonstrably false, and reliable sources seem to describe them as such. In order to meet Wikipedia's policy regarding the neutral point of view, they should be described as such, even if Atlas (who is not a certified epidemiologist) strongly believes they are true.

Softening language to "disputed" or "assessed to be false" may create an undue sense of validity, and may not be appropriate unless you can also add a reliable source which demonstrate that there is in fact legitimate scientific debate on these subjects.

Some links you might find useful:
 * Help:Referencing for beginners
 * Five pillars
 * Verifiability (policy)
 * No original research (policy)
 * Neutral point of view (policy)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox (policy)
 * Fringe theories (guideline)

Best wishes, and happy editing! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)