User talk:Lucky Starfish

Welcome!

Hello, Lucky Starfish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Sett (paving). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just going to go ahead and mark major edits minor? Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major edit. "Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor"."

The gratuitous propagation of political bias under the cover of administrator privilege is a form of vandalism against the larger project of a publicly edited, neutral encyclopedia. (Wrote you a note on your user page. Ciao ;).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky Starfish (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 July 2015‎

Please read What is not vandalism. Regardless of who is right in this content dispute it is not correct to label either of your edits vandalism. It is also not correct to use the minor edit button for a significant change in content. Doing so can be seen as an attempt to hide your edit and can be viewed as disruptive. I assume this was not your intention but you are now aware of this. Chillum 16:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The note that starts this section makes it clear that your edit was not a minor edit, as does your statement that it was defamation. We are not a "neutral encyclopedia", we are an encyclopedia whose articles should have a "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV. Thus our article on the Holocaust is not neutral on the issue of whether it took place, nor is our article on evolution neutral between the Creationist and scientific views. And of course my edits aren't made under administrator privilege. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a "neutral encyclopedia", we are an encyclopedia whose articles should have a "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV. Duh . . that's precisely what is wrong with the claim about Duke on the Michael Collins Piper article: it attempts to bias the reader up front against its subject through guilt-by-association with an alleged "Holocaust denier." (The accuracy of the charge in Duke's case is another matter, and the absurdity/intellectual vacuity of the expression itself yet another.) The whole attempt at poisoning the well is stupid anyway, because anyone who reads on in the article about Piper will learn about his revisionist publications--as they should (they are entirely relevant to his career and life story). So the inclusion of the phrase is gratuitous and in obvious violation of neutral pov. As such I removed it, but did you notice that I didn't change anything else? That's because I knew it would be a waste of time to try to fight the systematic bias in the article, and for that matter anywhere else on Wikipedia which is patrolled by those infected by Wikipedia's special variety of neckbeard bienpensantisme. Ultimately it's just not worth most people's time (mine included) to argue with people like you here, and so you win. But that doesn't make you right, and it certainly doesn't make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.