User talk:Egcrossan

Egcrossan, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Egcrossan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

1984 F1 race articles[edit]

Hi Egcrossan. You may have noticed that I reverted your recent edits to several F1 race articles. Per the convention of the Formula One WikiPoject, these articles reflect the points totals at the conclusion of the race. In 1984, the Tyrrells weren't disqualified (and hence Prost didn't receive his extra point) until after the Italian GP. If you have any questions, feel free to ask either here, or at my talk page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks. I think it would be useful to include an asterisk next to those results explaining that. Egcrossan (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Keir Starmer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Czello 09:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Describing Starmer as a "socialist" and as "soft left" displays a clear political perspective. That in and of itself violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

You wouldn't put an unchallenged assertion in an article about North Korea that they country is a "Democratic People's Republic", as that would be biased, verging on propagandistic. So at the very least put a disclaimer that many people (correctly) view Starmer as a right-wing Blairite who is trying to destroy the left. That's what his *actions* rather than his *words* tell us. Egcrossan (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we go on what the sources describe him as -- you ignored those to insert your own viewpoint. One of the statements you changed in fact is Starmer's own description of himself: by doing so you introduced a factual error (he didn't describe himself as a moderate). — Czello 09:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of British voters see him as similar to Tony Blair:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/13/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-compare-labour-leaders Egcrossan (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a majority at all, it's 33%. Besides, you're making an interpretation of his political views based on the (fairly vague) wording "seen most similar to". That would be original research. Ultimately what we include in our articles has to be adequately and clearly sourced; it seems like you might be editing in a way to push a certain perspective on Starmer. — Czello 11:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might also be relevant information to present if you do genuinely want a balanced perspective on Keir Starmer's politics:

'Any reapplication by Sir Keir Starmer to the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers will need approval by a general meeting as he is “demonstrably not a socialist,” the group said today.

The Labour leader had resigned from the group when he was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008.

The group’s chairman Declan Owens said that Sir Keir was “censured” by attendees at the annual general meeting on Tuesday night as they were disappointed over his stance on a variety of policies.

A motion proposed by group member Nick Bano, which passed, lists the “appalling policy positions” that Sir Keir has taken since he succeeded Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the party in April 2020.

They include: whipping Labour MPs and peers to abstain on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill, “abandoning” a leadership election pledge committing to migrants’ rights, “silencing” left-wing and pro-Palestinian voices in the party, “failing” to take action against Islamophobia and anti-black racism in the party, and “failing” to take any action against Labour MPs with “hateful and dangerous” attitudes towards transgender people.'

Source: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/sir-keir-starmer-censured-agm-haldane-society-socialist-lawyers

Surely you should at least point out that, whilst he identifies as a socialist, many socialists would beg to differ? Egcrossan (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to start a conversation on the article's talk page about adding this content to the article, ideally under the #Political positions section. — Czello 13:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

You mark your edits as minor and none of those I’ve seen meet the requirements. The definition of a minor edit is that they would never require a review, e. g. when you fix a spelling mistake. The moment you add just a single word, it’s not a minor edit. When you ask in your edit summary for others to review your edit, … You get the drift. You can read up on this at Help:Minor edit. Schwede 66 17:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought minor meant it didn't change the meaning of the article. I will amend this in future. Egcrossan (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]