User talk:Nova Cygni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] National Rifle Association

Hi, please remember our neutrality policy in editing, especially on contentious topics like National Rifle Association. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here, just remember neutrality. Try the tutorial to learn how to edit, and you can ask questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. Best, Meelar (talk) 05:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "undeniable that the relaxed gun controls of America are directly responsible for the country's high level of violence and gun-related crime"--the NRA disputes just that. NPOV means stating facts and attributing arguments in such a way that consensus can be formed--that statement didn't make it, sorry. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:05, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You can discuss proposed wording changes on Talk:National Rifle Association.

When I used "make it", I meant "achieve a neutral point of view". Sorry, should have been more specific in my wording. That's the goal of all edits. The goal is explicitly not to convince people or make them see things from a given side. Meelar (talk) 22:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Isaac Brock and The *Upward* Spiral

You commented on the Isaac Brock page in a section titled "The Ever Downward Spiral of Wikipedia":

I find this article to be tediously biased and beside that it is poorly written. I am depressed (but not surprised) that it has been chosen as a feature article.

I replaced this with:

Nova Cygni has suggested that this article is NPOV. Can it be improved?

Now I agree that the featured articles I've seen lately aren't really meeting the necessary bar for quality (which is why I am spending time trying to improve them prose-wise, I sure as heck don't know anything about Sir Anybody). You and I might want to get involved in the review process and become people who help screen and ready articles for being promoted to Featured Article status.

In the meantime, if you notice an article has problems, recall that the "edit this page" button is right there. Try that with other websites that post crappy articles about British generals--you can't, Google will just keep hitting their stale content forever. At least here you can do something about it — which is the whole point. So shake that depression, have some faith, and so long as you're reading with a critical eye then why not make your criticisms of the POV more specific to the issues that caught your attention...? Metaeducation 23:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting your text on Talk:Canon T90

Nothing to do with the article, excessive use of bad language. And we don't protect main page articles; it's easy enough to watch for idiots. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)