User talk:Toiene0wwe90sd

I don't have a clue in what way you feel my edit to Steve Israel's page was not from a neutral POV. It previously had read "Israel supports allowing abortions to be legal in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother." My edit was the addition of the words "threat to" between "and" and "the" at the end of the sentence. I made this edit because "Israel supports allowing abortions to be legal in cases of...the life of the mother," as the sentence previously read, does not make a lot of sense as written, nor does it accurately reflect Rep. Israel's stated position on abortion, which is that it should be legal in some instances, such cases involving a threat to the life of the mother, and not cases involving the life of the mother in any way, as a living mother is usually prerequisite for pregnancy. Thus the life of the mother is inherently involved in and connected to the pregnancy, and therefore an abortion. Rep. Israel supports allowing legal abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, not in any case with a living mother. Even if you felt my edit expressed a point of view about abortion in some way, which it very clearly does not, the edit itself was to a section of the entry about Rep. Israel's policy positions. That necessarily is going to include statements that express a POV on whatever subjects are included therein, and given that my edit accurately reflects Rep. Israel's stated position on abortion (which is available on his website, though I doubt you bothered to check before you reverted my edit, which is pretty ridiculous and irresponsible editorial behavior on your part), it is a factually accurate edit, and thus should not have been reverted simply because you felt it expressed a POV. That is what it was supposed to do--express Rep. Israel's stated position on abortion. Furthermore, I don't need you to lecture me about the merits of content neutrality, or about how hard wikipedia's contributors work to remain neutral, and to keep individual biases and POVs from creeping into their articles. It's pretty condescending and just a little self-righteous of you to preach to me, buddy, so in the future, if you pull this or a similar stunt again, keep that part to yourself, and if you feel the need to scold someone, find someone else. Check your facts first, and make sure that a POV has even been expressed before you cry 'foul' over biased content. I take neutrality and accuracy pretty seriously myself, and I stand by every edit I've made or will make, but I'm not so arrogant as to chastise other contributors. My hat's off to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.fedora (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Toiene0wwe90sd! Thank you for your contributions. I am AntiCompositeNumber and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out my edit

Can you please not do that again? I didn't see what wasn't neutral in the edit and I'm assuming you're talking about Hidden Figures. Lemonaded (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Return of Donkey Kong

The article Return of Donkey Kong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is almost totally speculation on an unreleased game of no shown notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]