|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:NoFreeWill
I think I've understood your problem. It's with the wording of the article (Bill Maher). Instead of it saying that he is "against science" (a statement that is too bold), I've reworded it to say that his record on science is bad. Is this better? I'm sorry for any confusion on my part, though I think "he has expressed concern for X" is too mild as opposed to what he actually thinks about GMOs and vaccines, in my opinion, which was my problem. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 03:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm new to editing rationalwiki, and don't even know if you'll see this message. If so, I appreciate your rewording. It still sounds a bit harsh considering I see rationalwiki as an information site. I would be more satisfied with something like, he seems to reject Vaccines and GMO's yet supports science, which some may find contradictory.....In any event, I apologize and appreciate your protecting rationalwiki from abusive edits. — Unsigned, by: NoFreeWill / talk / contribs
- Of course, I'll see the message. I check recent changes regularly to find new edits and just patrol them. I reworded it a bit more, changing from "dismal" to "not great", as Maher has had some good things going for him such as being a harsh critic of global warming deniers (though it's my opinion that global warming deniers deserve contempt and scorn). Of course, no one says they "oppose science" directly, so what they proclaim and how it aligns with science is more telling if one "supports" science or not. Overall, you're right: saying he's "against science" is incorrect and even saying his record is terrible is incorrect, so it's more of a mixed record, leaning to "anti science", though that's my assessment. Anyhow, it's fine, I'm glad we can settle something. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 03:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and you sign your posts with ~~~~. And yeah, since you're new, if you have objections to article content you think may be controversial, it's better to go to the respective talk pages. If you don't think it's controversial and your edit gets undone, either contact the user who undid your edit or also go to the respective talk page, make a comment, and use {{ping}} (e.g. {{ping|LeftyGreenMario}}) so that way, the other party is alerted. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and you sign your posts with ~~~~. And yeah, since you're new, if you have objections to article content you think may be controversial, it's better to go to the respective talk pages. If you don't think it's controversial and your edit gets undone, either contact the user who undid your edit or also go to the respective talk page, make a comment, and use {{ping}} (e.g. {{ping|LeftyGreenMario}}) so that way, the other party is alerted. --It's-a me,
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, NoFreeWill!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Since you're new, I'll also give you a welcome template. I believe that was you editing the Ben Shapiro page, but make sure you review our pages, especially RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? which will give you a better idea how our articles are formatted. Mainly, we support slant in our articles as long as it's properly sourced. As for Ben Shapiro, if you have a problem with the article, it's better to bring it up in the talk page and provide specific statements and good reasoning and evidence to support your claims. You can't just say "the article is negative" you have to say "the article is unnecessarily negative because of 'x statement' or 'x statement is unnecessarily snarky' and here's why". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That was me editing Shapiro, I merely removed the crossed out Trumpbart.com, apparently they already undid the edit. I can't stand the unnecessary snark, it almost makes me not want to participate, very disheartening. Thanks for taking the time to communicate with me and showing me the ropes. A special thanks for the ping tip, very gracious of you. I wish you the very best.
Cheers, Dean --NoFreeWill (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @NoFreeWill Yeah, I would've undid it too though I'm not a fan of excess strike-out either (I hope it pleases you to know that many users share your sentiment on strikeout humor; I'm personally fine only if it's used sparingly and adds to the article). I'm going to remove it anyhow. Oh, when you ping, do so in the comment itself. Generally, people put the ping template before the post, like what I did. I didn't have to ping since you'll be notified anyway; it's just a demonstration. And if you're responding to a message, use the colon to indent the comment, as I did. No problem, you're welcome, and happy editing. If you have any more questions or concerns, you can always contact me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario, You are a scholar and a gentleman. Your kind gestures and guidance truly means a lot to me.
My Deepest Gratitude, Dean --NoFreeWill (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks, and I guess I should let you know that I'm more of a lady than a gentleman. :) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Haha, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Either way, you're a treasure, lol.
--NoFreeWill (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)