User talk:MattVel707

MattVel707, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Edits on Jane Kim
Hi there. Thanks for your interest in editing the above article. I did not accept the revision you submitted, as it had a number of issues that must be addressed prior to the information being included in the article.

Firstly, the edit you provided was not formatted correctly in Wikipedia style. This is minimally problematic, as other editors can certainly help with formatting along the way. However, the more problematic issue is that the edit does not appear to be neutral in its point of view on the subject. The article as it stands could certainly use more detail and information about the subject, but your edit was expansive and overly focused on providing positive information regarding the subject.

My suggestion is that if you wish to make use of this information, go to Talk:Jane Kim and begin a discussion on the information you feel would be important for addition to the article. Other editors will be glad to discuss and work with you on creating a neutrally-written article.

Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to add more information about the Supervisor to the original posting. I'd argue that the article as it reads now is not neutral in its point of view at all, so I wanted to add more information about the Supervisor's biography and legislative work, which we can both agree is pertinent to understanding who she is. This is hardly vandalism, and the passages can be edited if the editors feel that it is too superfluous, but outright deletion indicates that the "positive" view is not desirable by wikipedia, which seems to be antithetical to what was said above. How can we ensure that this information and the new information is included?

Thank you. MattVel707


 * The issue as I see it with the information you were providing is that you went too far the other way - you replaced properly formatted and cited material wholesale with material that, while you provided citations, was not formatted and represents a somewhat hagiographic view of the subject. As I noted, neutral point of view is important, which means that both successes and controversies should (if relevant) be included in the article.


 * What I'd suggest is that you take a look at other articles on supervisors for examples on how to handle additional information. Of the ones I checked, Eric Mar appears to be the most developed; you'll note it has some political section as well as some discussion of issues that have arisen. That's a fairly standard way of handling political articles. As you're a new editor, you may be able to get some assistance by posting on the SF Bay Area task force page or with the politics and government task force. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry per the findings of Sockpuppet investigations/Ylsb16. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)