User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment

This is ImprovedWikiImprovment's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to ImprovedWikiImprovment.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline

Discussions on this page may turn into heated arguments. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
( no personal attacks · assume good faith · be kind )

Daily pageviews of User:ImprovedWikiImprovment

Invalid deletion of it is a Small earth[change source]

An amusement park ride isn't nonsense, so please undelete the page. Gemink (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page's content made no sense, thus fits the G1 criteria, so I will not undelete it. --IWI (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths in month pages[change source]

The "deaths in month" pages have some confusing wording. Take Deaths in August 2021: it says 'For deaths that should be noted before the month that the world is in, please see "Months".' This makes sense when it's the current month, but for previous months, it doesn't make sense. How do you think this should be changed? (I previously brought this up here.) Lights and freedom (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lights and freedom: Yes, I see, that is an issue. I don't think we need a sentence anything like that in the lead, so I would suggest removing the sentence. --IWI (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions. 1) Do the deaths in month pages need the links at the bottom to other months? 2) For the deaths in year pages, like Deaths in 2021, do you think the second paragraph is needed, that says all entries must have a source? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{re|Lights and freedom} Sorry only just saw this. I would say no to both, especially (in the second case) considering the editnotice I added saying virtually the same thing. --IWI (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask for reading and logic. Have not made any personal comments but you state I did.[change source]

IWI, I just put in place at the presentation (first lines) of the articule what is stated in the following paragraphs to improve it by making it briefer to read without loosing any of its content. You state in a message that I should not put personal comments, so it goes in alignment with the no-bias politics (neutral point of view).

Well, a discredit (just as any insult) is not a neutral point of view. A praise also is not neutral. Both are given as opinions, and as such might be true or false, it is not our dutty to attest it INSIDE wikipedia. That would be in a court of other places. A neutral point of view is only possible by asserting that an opinion is an opinion and not a fact. Thus, unless something is widely really proven, both possible interpretations of a single fact MUST BE INCLUDED in a wikipedia article.

What I am saying is that water is wet, so I know you know it and agree with it. Just writing to see if you attest to this langage logic.

So, a person that in its job at the Congress is always batlling in political issues, lives and breaths between honest and corrupt people, bribes and transparent accountings. When she EXPOSES a "hidden crime" or "hidden criminal agenda" or "faulty behavior", of course she is a whistleblower. It does not mean that what she expreses is truth, it just means she is asking for attention on the subject for public and possible legal scrutiny. Only later her exposure could be labeled as truthfull or just thoughtfull (fact or unsubsantianated theory). Thus, the characterization of ANYONE as "conspiracy theorist" reduces the logic of what is said. Any can create a theory.

This Congress woman would not create a "conspiracy explanation" out of thin air. She has some facts. Which are obvious all around the political shceme. So, some people would call her a "conspiracy theorist", exactly those that would wants to keep on going with the conspiracy, or those who are so naive or numb or hypersensitive that cannot tolerate that possible reality.

Then, she is, by pure logic a whistleblower and also a conspiraty theorist. Both at the same time. And THAT IS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW! 2.138.180.33 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are wrong; we go by what reliable sources say. You did not provide any source for your change, so I reverted it. If a reliable source is provided, the content may be able to stay. However, reliable sources seem to state that she is a far-right conspiracy theorist. --IWI (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another IP messing with the cartoon pages[change source]

2600:1700:5110:EA0:B5FE:E0C3:FFAD:8C56 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Lights and freedom (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We gotta put a filter or something in place to catch these guys.... Derpdart56 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked the 64 range for a month, thank you Lights and freedom. --IWI (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]