User talk:Ianonne89

Welcome!

Hello, Ianonne89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Fox News and MSNBC
Any particular reason why you removed this from Fox News Channel controversies but added this to MSNBC? Your source says that Fox News viewers are least informed with MSNBC's being a distant second, so why is it appropriate to say it about MSNBC and not Fox News? Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  13:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason? How about NPOV? Mind you, the FDU poll can be cited in Fox News entries, but can not be cited in MSNBC? Is that what this is about?--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't claim that you are trying a achieve NPOV when you are removing it from the least informed, but adding it to the distant second least informed. How is that NPOV? Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  13:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am trying to achieve NPOV. The conclusion of the poll is indefensible and deeply misleading. I would have done the same with respect to MSNBC. Look, all news outlets are biased. Over here, we have the BBC, which compared to US standards is incredibly objective. That does not mean that the BBC is unbiased, or completely objective. WP can and should be better. We have here the opportunity of putting to work those ideals / pillars that make this a great place where people from all walks of life can contribute. --Ianonne89 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You say you would have done the same with respect to MSNBC, but you are doing the exact opposite. You are arguing against inclusion of it in one article (which is more highly covered in the source), but arguing for inclusion in another (which the article says is a distant second). If this is your method of trying to achieve NPOV, I think you should rethink your methods. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  13:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not doing such a thing. I have said that if poll is to be included, which I don't think it should, it should be included in all related entries. If it is not to be included, then it should not be included anywhere. If you guys are using as source of controversy? -an unsupported stance- in the Fox article, then you can't deny for it to be included in MSNBC. Distant second or not, the poll does mention viewers of MSNBC as uninformed. As stated, I don't think it should be included either way, but if it's good for one article, which obviously it is for some editors, then you can't edit out in other and then claim NPOV. Remember what WP is not, notably INDISCRIMINATE.--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is true, why did you not self-revert your addition to MSNBC after you removed it from Fox News? You had it included in MSNBC but removed from Fox News. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will my revert in MSNBC change the attitude of editors pushing for inclusion in Fox News?--Ianonne89 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It might demonstrate sincerity that you don't believe it should be included, but I doubt it would help much. It's really too late to do as I was asking about. What I was implying was that your actions didn't demonstrate your stated intentions. Instead of inserting it in both or removing it from both, you just inserted in one and removed it from another. When I reverted, I admit I didn't read far enough and obviously mistyped my ctrl+f. I honestly don't care one way or the other, just saying your initial actions didn't demonstrate much good faith. Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When I included, I admit I didn't read far enough... Guilty of same here. It is a shame that there's such difficulty in reaching consensus over such a simple issue, but then again, a sign of our times I guess.--Ianonne89 (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I see that the poll has been removed from Fox News Channel, but still remains from where you added it to MSNBC. You said that would have done the same with respect to MSNBC, so I'm just curious when you intend on following through with your NPOV goal. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  00:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)