User talk:DprPrplr

Welcome!
Hi DprPrplr! I noticed your contributions to Eugene, Oregon&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

100 Years (film)
Sorry, didn't mean to revert your edit at 100 Years (film) where you fixed a typo! Meant to revert the one before that added some redundant info, which I've done now. Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Fire belly newts, Japanese fire belly newt
Hi, Sorry I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by changing the content of Cynops. But containing information about certain range may causes issues in here. So If you don't mind, can you remove it for few weeks? I'm asking your help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rulethecustom (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edits on Fire belly newts and Japanese fire belly newt because they removed content without any explanation in the edit summary - it had nothing to do with my feelings. Furthermore, the information about fire belly newts producing toxin appears to be true from researching online, so I am not sure why it was removed from the articles. You say that the information "may cause issues in here" - please elaborate as I don't see how. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "remove it for few weeks" - removing true information for a few weeks isn't something you do on Wikipedia. DprPrplr (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Media bias in the United States
Hey there, sorry to get on the wrong foot, and I admire your quick editing prowess. I just wanted to know why my comments were non-constructive and may have been considered vandalism (I apologize as I don't know much about the RedWarn system). I just wanted to edit it, being familiar with some of S. Robert Lichter's work and that chapter in particular, that it doesn't say "media to be a conservative force in politics". It does talk about economic incentives, but not in a conservative direction, but in an ideological direction (that could include a liberal bias). You can read the chapter yourself here: https://topicminer.hse.ru/rsf2019/literature/media-bias/Lichter_Theories%20of%20Media%20Bias.pdf. I really appreciate the work you do as a Wikipedia editor, and just want to correct this little misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.15.86.160 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand that you edited in good faith, and thank you for trying to make Wikipedia better. However, the change you made didn't seem to have a reliable source.
 * Specifically, this is the text before your edit:
 * Academic studies tend not to confirm a popular media narrative of liberal journalists producing a left-leaning media bias, though some studies suggest economic incentives may have that effect. Instead, the studies reviewed by S. Robert Lichter generally found the media to be a conservative force in politics.
 * You changed this to:
 * Academic studies tend not to confirm a popular media narrative of liberal journalists producing a left-leaning media bias, though some studies suggest economic incentives may have the effect of language being left-coded. Instead, the studies reviewed by S. Robert Lichter finds that there are strong negativity biases at play that could be conceived as having an ideological bias.
 * The source quote is:
 * ...much popular media criticism has posited that journalists' personal attitudes produce a liberal tilt in their coverage. Most scholarly studies have failed to support this conclusion, however, and the increasing public perception of liberal media bias has been linked to audience biases and strategic efforts by conservative elites. However, recent studies have rekindled this debate, while attributing biased coverage to economic incentives rather than journalists' mindsets.
 * The quote specifically says that "strategic efforts by conservative elites" (along with audience biases) has been linked to the perception of liberal media bias, but it seemed your edit removed this information. Now I don't know if the original text is better supported by the source quote, but it seemed to me that your change was also not exactly fully supported by the source quote.
 * If you have a better source quote or a better framing that's more supported by the source, then please go ahead and make the change along with updating the source/reference.
 * Also, the link you gave is not working for me.
 * Thanks,
 * DprPrplr (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and sorry for the late response. I always hope to act in good faith, and as I mentioned earlier, I valued that in your work as well. All I was saying is I dislike that it states that "media is a conservative force in politics" as there is no evidence that this is true in the original cited work. The quote (at the conclusion of the work) says that conservative elites are increasing public perception of this, which is undoubtedly true. This does not mean that media in general is conservative (e.g. Some right-wingers spread that the "media" is left-wing, but that doesn't mean the media, writ large, is right-wing, or that it is a conservative force). I want to edit it to make this clear, and want to ever-so-slightly edit it to make it clearer. Again, to repeat myself, I only want to remove "the media is a conservative force in politics" as the entire cited work does not say this and is much more similar to "the media is neither a conservative or liberal force in politics". Thanks DprPrplr for all you do, and hopefully we can work this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.15.85.131 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I fixed the link! Sorry about that!