User talk:Tol/Archives/2021/02

Regarding Your A7 Tag

Requesting an A7 for an article currently in an afd with 4 Del !votes seems rather counter productive, I’d say let the AFD run its course. That however is my personal opinion & probably doesn’t reflect the general consensus of the collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I should however state that I share your concerns about @GetBlessings clearly being a sock of iwasmadewalker. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agh, my apologies. I believed that waiting seven days for the AFD to conclude was unnecessary given that the creator was blocked and the article is clearly promotional (perhaps not G11 level) and it seemed to qualify for A7. I'll comment on the AFD instead given that it was contested — thanks for letting me know! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, we learn everyday, there isn’t an iota of doubt that both editors are definitely one & the same. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Hill

I'm a little confused. Do you mean a source for the fact that Newsmax links are on their page? Other than SEEING THEM? Go to https://thehill.com/ and look along the right side of the page halfway down. Or do I have to provide a link to a news item from Newsmax that they are putting links on "The Hill"? That's a LITTLE absurd. Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Will THIS be sufficient? https://thehill.com/social-tags/newsmax Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gil gosseyn: Thank you for replying. In addition to sourcing issues, your addition appears to be less than neutral. Specifically:

• While it claims to be "non-partisan" implies its claims are wrong;
• prominently and staunchly emphasise;
• Brief description of Newsmax is negative, mentioning its conspiracy theories about the election and false accusations of voter fraud and not much else. I agree with what you wrote (see Newsmax § Post-2020 United States presidential election for sources); however, it's not particularly neutral. I don't believe that the conspiracy theories & voter fraud allegations part is particularly germane. One could also say that they had nothing better to do than make fun of Biden's dog; it is also not particularly relevant nor neutral.

I will probably rewrite your addition at some point by cutting what I mentioned above; feel free to do this yourself. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 12:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If you admit that the edit was factual, but disagreed with the tone, WHY NOT just delete the offending qualifiers, and leave the factual statement? And Newsmax is recognized as being highly biased, as well as repeatedly promoting Trump's lies about the election, and other disinformation. And the fact that The Hill provides links to their content belies their claims of neutrality. Also, your original reason for reverting was that it wasn't properly referenced, with NO mention of tone, yet when I reference and reapply the edit, Hipal accuses me of EDIT-WARRING? I hardly think that's fair or justified. Gil gosseyn (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As you were alerted, there are discretionary sanctions in place on post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people per the case American Politics 2. The edit was challenged, so consensus should be reached on the talk page. I did not revert your edit, an IP did, but I still wanted to let you know that your wording was not neutral. As a potentially controversial paragraph, I believe that sources may be needed for:

• The Newsmax content being prominent;
• Newsmax promoting conspiracy theories about the election and false accusations of voter fraud. (There are sources for this, as I mentioned previously.)

I apologise for not mentioning tone in my original revert; I believed that it being unsourced was a larger issue (and that sources did not support some of your stronger language).

To summarise my points, I believe that:

• The Hill shows sponsored Newsmax content;
• The Hill describes itself as nonpartisan while Newsmax is very conservative;
• Your addition was not appropriate as it did not cite a source or use neutral wording;
• Your reinstating the challenged edit (albeit with a source and no longer in the lead), while understandable (as you addressed my issues), was not entirely appropriate given discretionary sanctions;
• Hipal's description of your reinstatement as edit-warring was also not entirely appropriate given that you believed to have fixed the issue and had reinstated it only once;
• If there has been significant coverage of The Hill's website showing Newsmax content, then a sentence on that may be appropriate;
• If you believe that the sentence should be included, or have further comments on this matter, this should be brought to the talk page.

— Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 00:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Twassman. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 00:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)