User talk:Inunotaisho26

Welcome to Wikipedia, Inunotaisho26! Thank you for your contributions. I am QuackGuru and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * How to cite sources
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Alabama Republican and Democratic Special election sections
First, you've admitted that you have a bias - you say that you're voting for Doug Jones - that is called being PARTIAL - and there is no such thing as an impartial party - so I don't think that you're the best person to edit this page. Second, I too am a Democrat (from the North) - and I can tell you that referring to one candidate's positions as "the Democrat's interesting positions" and referring to the other candidate's positions as "his controversial past" is NOT IMPARTIAL. It's exactly this behavior that causes people to distrust Wikipedia. Third, I also read the news. Right-wing news argues that Doug Jones has made "controversial" comments about abortions in the same way that left-wing news argues that Roy Moore has a "controversial past" (you cited al.com in both edits - al.com has a left-wing bias - if you didn't know). According to a Doug Jones supporter like you, Doug Jones is not "controversial" - to a Republican supporter of Roy Moore, it's probably the opposite. To a Republican, Doug Jones is likely known for his "controversial past" and Roy Moore has "interesting positions". Finally, you are not helping Wikipedia when you attempt to make one candidate look better (Doug Jones) by using positive or neutral-sounding words (his "interesting positions"), while you use negative-sounding words ("his controversial past") to refer to the other candidate (Roy Moore). Proposed Titles: Roy Moore Controversy, Doug Jones Controversy - both titles acknowledge that both candidates have, according to various media sources, said "controversial" things. EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT KIND OF GAME YOU'RE PLAYING. NO ONE IS FOOLED. I don't want to engage in edit-warring - and certainly not with my fellow Democrat, but if you undo what I removed, I'm going to report you. Jonah161 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Jonah161

Alabama Republican and Democratic Special election sections
I don't care as much about the final version of the text. I'm more concerned with the titles you put on the sections. Information about political candidates is usually reserved for their own personal wikipedia pages. It's rarely put on the election page. The election page usually just lists election polls and results. Jonah161 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Jonah161

Talk:Joe Cunningham (politician)
Hi, with regard to the page above, I'd recommend reading Your First Article, a guide to creating, well, your first article! I'd also recommend perhaps asking at WikiProject Politics US Politics taskforce or the main Politics WikiProject for advice, and to recruit independent, neutral editors. Lastly, the page you created is a talk page for an article - please don't create these to discuss potential articles. The best place for such requests is the Help Desk or Teahouse. Thanks! ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 07:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Cunningham (politician): Reply
Firefly, RHaworth, Teahouse, : I have looked at the Your First Article guide, but I am not the person to create the article on Joe Cunningham (politician). During the 2017 Special Election, I had to make direct contact with the Doug Jones campaign in order make sure his initial picture was on Wikipedia. I don't think I am the one to be writing an unbiased article. Point taken regarding potential articles and where to dicuss an articles creation.