User talk:Anon12398

Stephen Miller
You are *plainly* trying to whitewash Steven J. Miller by removing unimpeahable sources, such as the Vice President of the American Statistical Society's take on the matter. Wikipedia goes with what the sources say, rather than with strained & confected apologia. You have made two attempts - both different - to do the same thing.

Your option now is to explain and argue, on the talk page, for the changes you wish to see made. Further changes to the article without discussion will be liable to see you blocked under WP:3RR. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not engaging in original research. As I mentioned before, the article is clearly one sided and it is important to reference specific qualifying statements of the affidavit - particularly explicit statements that conclusions drawn are contingent on assumptions about the representativeness of the sample as well the presence of potential alternative explanations. This is not original research. Without these statements, the wikipedia article is a gross misrepresentation of the affidavit and as the implication is that the affidavit is devoid of such qualifying statements. these statements are now explicitly quoted now from the affidavit. Additionally, discussions about correcting for non-response bias now contain links to other wikipedia articles. using the actual wikipedia article is perfectly fine in this context according to wikipedia's own statements about primary source. no interpretations of miller's work is being made.

WP:PRIMARY

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

anon12398 (anon12398); Talk to anon12398 ; anon12398 edits 05:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes being made here are to improve accuracy. Fraud is not mentioned a single time in the affidavit. The affidavit pertains to the integrity of mail in ballots. Potential explanations are appended to the existing quote.

December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Article is clearly one sided and it is important to reference specific qualifying statementsof the affidavit - particularly explict statements that conclusions drawn are contingent on assumptions about the representativeness of the sample as well the presence of potential alternative explanations. Otherwise, the implication of the wikipedia article is that the affidavit is devoid of such qualifying statements. these statements are now explicitly quoted now from the affidavit. Additionally, discussions about correcting for non-response bias now contain links to other wikipedia articles. anon12398 ( anon12398 ); Talk to anon12398 ; anon12398 edits 05:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No original research
Allow me to draw your attention to WP:NOR, which in a nutshell forbids "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Your edit here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_J._Miller&type=revision&diff=995458146&oldid=995387293 - was exactly the sort of original research forbidden by WP:NOR; *you* draw conclusions from your reading of the affidavit and use your conclusions to challenge the other sources, such as the De Veaux statement. And for that reason, your OR addition has been removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not engaging in original research. As I mentioned before, the article is clearly one sided and it is important to reference specific qualifying statements of the affidavit - particularly explicit statements that conclusions drawn are contingent on assumptions about the representativeness of the sample as well the presence of potential alternative explanations. This is not original research. Without these statements, the wikipedia article is a gross misrepresentation of the affidavit and as the implication is that the affidavit is devoid of such qualifying statements. these statements are now explicitly quoted now from the affidavit. Additionally, discussions about correcting for non-response bias now contain links to other wikipedia articles. using the actual wikipedia article is perfectly fine in this context according to wikipedia's own statements about primary source. no interpretations of miller's work is being made.

WP:PRIMARY

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

anon12398 (anon12398); Talk to anon12398 ; anon12398 edits 05:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"*you* draw conclusions from your reading of the affidavit and use your conclusions to challenge the other sources, such as the De Veaux statement." Since you are concerned about this statement, it has been removed.

anon12398 (anon12398); Talk to anon12398 ; anon12398 edits 05:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)