User talk:Gdkanitz

August 2022
Hello, I'm Johnj1995. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2022 United States Senate election in New York have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC) hello Johnj1995, Could you please inform me as to what in my post constituted advertising or using wikipedia as a soap box? Id be more than happy to edit the basic information to comply. certainly including the name of a duely qualified candidate for office in a with a list of others is no more a soap box for one than another. However deliberately excluding a candidate from equal coverage is strictly against the law.


 * hello Johnj1995, Could you please inform me as to what in my post constituted advertising or using wikipedia as a soap box? Id be more than happy to edit the basic information to comply. certainly including the name of a duely qualified candidate for office in a with a list of others is no more a soap box for one than another. However deliberately excluding a candidate from equal coverage is strictly against the law. Gdkanitz (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no laws against "deliberately excluding a candidate from equal coverage" because it isn't about the law. Adding minor candidates to the infobox and lead section like this gives undue weight as it would make it seem like they're more important and notable than they are, see WP:UNDUE. The infobox only includes candidates who received 5% of the vote or are likely to receive it. — twotwofourtysix (talk &#124;&#124; edits) 13:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you edited only eight minutes after your account was created and about this candidate, you should probably clarify whether you have any conflict of interest with the candidate here. — twotwofourtysix (talk &#124;&#124; edits) 13:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Sources I cited have no conflict of interest, whether I personally do or not is irrelevant to the accuracy and truthfulness of the content of my post. The existence or not of your conflict of interest is a more interesting question. You are the one trying to misrepresent the basic choices in a federal election. Gdkanitz (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the petitioning requirements, and the recent tripling of those requirements, is to determine which candidates would be capable of getting a significant percentage of the vote. Diane Sare met those requirements and demonstrated that she is not a frivolous candidate. To fail to report that she will be on the ballot is a deliberate act to try and prevent that result. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to decide who voters should think in an important candidate. It is the job of an encyclopedia to report the facts. Diane has met requirements to be place on the ballot that were not able to be met by anyone else in this election cycle including one of the candidates that you have listed. he tried and failed. The fact is that Diane is one of only three candidates who each in different ways were each qualified to be on the ballot. Your belief as to whom may or may not be likely to get 5% of the vote is irrelevant. The State Government put a procedure in place to make that determination. Your arbitrary decision to Exclude Diane is a deliberate misrepresentation of the basic facts as to what choices people have and as such an attempt to unfairly influence the outcome. That is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Restore the revisions to the post that I made today. Gdkanitz (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote Wikipedias policy:
 * Follow the normal protocol
 * When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.
 * To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war. Gdkanitz (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)o not start an edit war.