User talk:Mjkite

September 2021
Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. I noticed that you recently removed content from Paul Gazelka without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Leonidlednev (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, MJ here. As I stated, I attempted to provide a more politically neutral perspective. I did not intend to give Gazelka a glowing tribute, and even after my edits a large amount of the article contains negative coverage, such as the Covid related coverage. I personally think it's more appropriate to simply list a variety of the stances a politician has taken without providing supporting arguments in favor of, or against, those stances. I also think that a wide variety of stances and issues should receive similar word space. For example, I added one sentence mentioning abortion (which is as much a part of his socially conservative stance as the LGBT issue), but didn't add any details supporting why it's a "good" or "bad" stance. I could have (and probably should have) deleted the phrase about the high covid case count in the Dakotas as being something that ventures beyond a neutral summary of Gazelka's stances and into the territory of providing an argument against those stances, however, I decided to compromise by providing a more scientific analysis of the stance - one that came from a respected journal, looked at 50 states over a 6 month period, and yes (to compliment Democrats) found that the Republican Covid response was worse...but not as dramatically worse as implied by the one narrow example that had been displayed. Other examples of ways that this article demonstrated on obvious slant were by oversimplifying the sources in saying that Republicans opposed police reform efforts after Floyd's death (the article said "some" or "many" and gave examples of other reforms Republicans supported), saying that attendees did not wear masks at the post-election event (the article said "many or "most") etc... These changes were slight but strongly affected the tone of the article. Mjkite (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Gazelka, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi M. Bitton, Why don't you give me examples of some of the specific ways that you feel your preferred content is more accurate and appropriate than mine, instead of simply reverting every addition, subtraction, and edit I made. Perhaps we can compromise on, for example, the Star Tribune quote about him being the most socially conservative Minnesota Senate leader. In the referenced article, this quote is tempered with the perspective that, despite is personal evangelical conservatism, he has tended not to focus his career primarily on social issues. I am OK with the inclusion of this quote, if it is followed by a brief summary of the abortion and gay marriage stance (similar to what I wrote), as well as a summary of some of the other issues he has worked on. If you want to go into a higher level of detail regarding his LGBT stance, that could be presented later in the article, so as not to make it seem like the primary focus of his career. Mjkite (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)