User talk:Localvore

Welcome!
Hello, Localvore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! POLITANVM talk 12:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Viewmont, I see your point, so I'll rewrite my note to contain only facts and then post the amended note. Localvore

Important notice
DanCherek (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. But why was my amended note deleted?
 * It was not written from a neutral point of view, which Wikipedia articles need to adhere to, and gave the impression of attempting to push a specific agenda. Wikipedia has a guideline called bold, revert, discuss — in this case, you boldly made an edit, another editor reverted it, and so you should go to the article's talk page (Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic) to gain consensus for the addition if you still feel that it should be added to the article. DanCherek (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dan. That makes sense, except the amended note I refer to is not the repost. Here is the content of the amended note that was subsequently deleted without cause:

"According to the New York Times, at https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007344183/redfield-cdc-masks.html, "Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the [now former] director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators [under oath] that if all Americans wore masks, the coronavirus could be controlled in six to 12 weeks.” However, national and global policy makers have not adopted a policy of face masks for all, but instead have supported spending trillions on other preventions and treatments, at a cost of over 4.4 million lives so far."

This is simply factual, citing the quote from the Times of the CDC Director and summarizing the fact that a different policy was followed and stating the costs of that different policy in contrast to the avoiding those costs by ending pandemic with face masks for all, not to say they could or could not be avoided but just stating facts. None of that is opinion. I happen to be an expert on pandemic, having presented a strategy for reduction at at 2006 UN sponsored disaster conference, and I've stated the most important fact about face masks at the top of the article, citing the source. I won't try to contribute again.
 * Sorry, my intent was never to discourage you from contributing. Believe me, I recognize the importance of face masks and share some of your frustrations. Another reason that the edit was reverted is that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable to a reliable, independent source. There was a link to a video of Redfield's statement, but no source for the rest of the additions, including However, national and global policy makers have not adopted a policy of face masks for all, but instead have supported spending trillions on other preventions and treatments, at a cost of over 4.4 million lives so far. DanCherek (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

But you are the one who discouraged me Dan, showing me that it is a waste of my time. Here is the current opening paragraph :

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks, such as surgical masks and cloth masks, have been employed as a public and personal health control measure against the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In both community and healthcare settings, their use is intended as source control to limit transmission of the virus and personal protection to prevent infection. Their function for source control is emphasized in community settings."

NO source for any of the half-dozen statements of well-known facts, including the most controversial, which is mask use is intended as a protective measure, while millions claim this is not so because the intent is to advance a political agenda of control of individual freedom. But on my deleted note, which DID cite a source for the quote and then listed the exact same sort of half-dozen well-known and easily verified facts, you say it's deleted because it attempts to push an agenda that you agree with, which is good public health policy. The lack of honesty and accountability in consistent application of standards for info seems to be a correct description of your own standard here and of Wikipedia's, and imho is the reason Wikipedia is consistently described as an unreliable source. This is why I didn't use my name and won't be back.


 * Hi Localvore, I hope you’ll consider returning to edit. There are a couple of clear issues with the way the content is written, but it might be worth adding to this section of the article. The two biggest issues with the latest edit are:
 * The lead paragraph is meant to summarize information that’s already in the article, not add new information. See WP:LEAD. Also, inline citations aren’t required for lead paragraphs, because they should only summarize the information in the body of the article (which should have inline citations). If that isn’t the case for this article, please do flag it.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. There is clear editorializing in your contribution, such as emphasizing that Redfield is under oath, and criticizing the actions of policy makers in a way that isn’t a paraphrase of a reliable independent source.
 * Wikipedia needs experts to contribute, so I hope you’ll stay. Dan and myself aren’t trying to attack you or silence the important message that masks could save lives. While it’s impossible to memorize every Wikipedia policy and guideline, Help:Introduction covers the basics. Other editors may revert or revise your edits, but that’s a normal part of editing a collaborative encyclopedia, and not a reflection of you and your expertise. Best, POLITANVM talk 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

POLITANVM, That's a good point about opening with a summary of later material that is supported by citations. But if the simple references to key critical facts in my deleted note are not supported by citations in the body of the article, then could it be reasonable to conclude that either some facts don't need citations or that these most-well-known facts should have been be cited rather than deleted from an article that's worth its cost in bits? Meanwhile, the most important point about face masks is what Redfield related, which I quoted with sources, and which the article omits even as it deleted my quote. You and your team can replace my deleted note, or fall fatally short of good service, and, speaking for the dead and dying, that is a fact.


 * Again, I think it’s worth including, within the relevant section and with an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia’s policies against advocacy in articles aside, the people that need to understand the importance of masks aren’t coming to this article as their source of truth. This article isn’t going to save any lives regardless of what it says. The best we can do is write a factual and dispassionate record of mask usage during this pandemic.
 * For this article, my suggestion is to write a brief summary of Redfield’s testimonial in the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention section.
 * Please understand that there is no “team” or bureaucracy here stopping you from contributing. I am, like yourself, an individual volunteer contributor here. I’m investing my time in Wikipedia (and this discussion) because I believe in Wikipedia’s purpose to create a free encyclopedia. I’m hopeful you’ll stay to help accomplish that purpose. I’m very aware of how difficult it can be to get started, particularly when your first interaction is getting reverted. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
 * P.S. See Help:Talk pages for how to indent and sign your talk page comments. Politanvm talk 20:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)