User talk:Pridnestrovian editor
January 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Pichpich. I noticed that you recently removed content from Transnistria (geographical region) 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 the 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. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Transnistria. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain how this violates the neutral point of view, so that I would not accidentally repeat such mistakes? Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. First thing, about your first sentence: we never tell our readers what they "should keep in mind", or what "should be noted", or what is or isn't "worth noting", or the like. That's what we call WP:EDITORIALIZING. It's not our job to tell our readers what they should consider important. We just tell them what the facts are. Second, your sources didn't support your claim. The only thing your sources support is that some people, in the state-controlled local media and political establishment, don't like the term. That is not the same as claiming that the population at large finds it "offensive", much less that you could get into "a conflict with the local population" for using it (what, are you going to be beaten up in the street?), or even "with the authorities" (what, are you going to be punished?). Third, it's doubtful whether any of your sources, being state-controlled outlets of an authoritarian regime, would count as reliable sources for pretty much anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. But the unconfirmed statement about the regime’s authoritarianism is not a violation of neutrality? I agree that it was I not entirely correct to formulate this proposal and it needs to be rewritten. But the links I cited are not an official source, but a news site. The same news was published on various resources, including those not related to the PMR. It just has a qualified translation into English. They cite the opinions of officials and historians, explaining the historical background and the attitude of the population as a whole. In the end, even officials are elected as representatives of the people and endowed with the right to express opinion of this people. Pridnestrovian editor (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. First thing, about your first sentence: we never tell our readers what they "should keep in mind", or what "should be noted", or what is or isn't "worth noting", or the like. That's what we call WP:EDITORIALIZING. It's not our job to tell our readers what they should consider important. We just tell them what the facts are. Second, your sources didn't support your claim. The only thing your sources support is that some people, in the state-controlled local media and political establishment, don't like the term. That is not the same as claiming that the population at large finds it "offensive", much less that you could get into "a conflict with the local population" for using it (what, are you going to be beaten up in the street?), or even "with the authorities" (what, are you going to be punished?). Third, it's doubtful whether any of your sources, being state-controlled outlets of an authoritarian regime, would count as reliable sources for pretty much anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)