User talk:Sigmundane

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I would like to direct searches for "Cincinnati Blackout" to Effects of Hurricane Ike in inland North America page but I'm not sure how to do that.
 * That's called a redirect. Just create a new page at Cincinnati blackout and put just the following text: #REDIRECT Effects of Hurricane Ike in inland North America . Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just done it for you, and was going to post a link to show how I did it. TenPoundHammer beat me to it though. :-)   Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you.Sigmundane (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Your Eyes (Yes song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Your Eyes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sycamore High School (Cincinnati, Ohio), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And please read WP:PUFFERY. Meters (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fair, I do not have an online source for this information and it is probably only trivial information anyway. Sigmundane (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

March 2024
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The page that is being edited is the talk page itself where I am making a point and doing exactly what is described above. A particular editor is removing my comment from the talk page. So the person engaging in the edit war is not me, but in fact them. I am claiming that the tone of the article about this presidential candidate is in violation of the neutrality guidelines of wikipedia and possibly election interference. For the record my comment has been removed 3 times now with impunity. I am simply reverting it. Sigmundane (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But it is you who does not understand that "neutral" in NPOV does not mean what it normally means elsewhere. Your comment was disruptive and a violation of NOTFORUM. Regardless, edit warring is wrong. When other editors disagree with you, take them seriously and listen. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Following that logic it is apparent that when I disagree with you then I suppose you need to take me seriously and that is what the talk page is for. The Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article is definitely in violation of the NPOV and I believe you are the one who doesn't understand that not me. "Neutral point-of-view (or NPOV) means that content is written objectively and without bias, merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others. A general-purpose encyclopedia ought not contain articles that favor particular viewpoints. Striving for a neutral point-of-view helps prevent articles from becoming advertisements or propaganda." Sigmundane (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.

"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.

Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else who be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to pick a fight here, truly, but I contend that the editing on the RFK Jr. page is not neutral. And that a is potentially libelous of wikipedia and smells a lot like election interference. He has published many books that are meticulously cited and never had any suits brought against him for libel by any organization, corporation or individual as a result. So whether it is Monsanto, The EPA or Anthony Fauci, it seems that what he is saying are facts rather than misinformation. So for pejoratives that misrepresent his stances to be sprinkled liberally throughout the lede paragraph as well as the rest of the article seems less than "neutral". Sigmundane (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume you want to experience success in changing that article. To do so, you need to be very specific. Attempts to make large changes don't usually succeed. Find the precise wording that you feel needs changing, then check the sourcing in the body of the article (the lead does not usually require sourcing as it duplicates what's in the body where the sourcing is found). Does the wording accurately reflect what the source(s) say? If not, then you can make a case for either changing the wording to reflect the source more accurately (see WP:PRESERVE) or maybe for removing the wording and/or source. Try that and you'll find that other editors will help you. We aren't your enemy. We are just defending policies here. Also, don't mention the political persuasion of other editors. You also have one, so that will always come back to bite you. It's a personal attack to use someone's political persuasion in an argument against them. We follow sources here. We really try to avoid allowing our personal beliefs to influence our editing.
 * To avoid creating more disruption on that talk page (since you've already damaged your reputation there) and will likely get a negative reaction, try proposing what you'd like to do right here. Discuss it with me, and I'll help you refine your case so it has a better chance of success. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)