User talk:DSGXX

As I said in my edit summary
If you feel there is anything in the set of changes you made that you think really represent slander, I'd like to hear more on the talk page, but that's not gonna be a magic word to removed sourced content en masse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the word for using unobjective wording is
this is supposed to be an objective site, and none of the wording here seems to be objective
 * The word for "not objective" is "subjective", and it's not at all synonymous with "false" and certainly not "slanderous". And we try to have a more comprehensive and direct viewpoint in our articles than one neutrality and objectivity derived purely from sterile statements of fact that don't acknowledge a broader context.  There's a long history to that perspective, that goes into things like TV reporting giving equal time to creationist whackadoodles and scientists who actually know what they're talking about, and the amount of bias that can be encoded into which purely factual statements you choose to include.  We aim at 3 things, more than anything else: scientific accuracy, snarkiness, and not letting bullshit go by unquestioned.  We also don't always succeed at that, but neutrality isn't a priority.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)