User talk:TimeToFixThis

Your tally update

'ello. You need to update your comment in the survey section to match. As "lead follows body", tally follows survey. It's not like we throw these discussions away when they're done. This will be in the archive forever, so it's worth an effort to keep it somewhat clean. Tally disagreeing with survey is not clean. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know if I follow with what you are asking. I'm willing to help clean some stuff up, I just don't know what you mean. Are you able to elaborate? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 23:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Failed pings

See WP:PINGFIX.

In short, your only recourse is to start over with the pings (without re-pinging the users that I already pinged).

If the original edit botches the ping syntax (e.g. {ping|TimeToFixThis}}), or if the original edit lacks a valid signature, no ping is sent and no indication is given that no ping was sent. This presents two problems:

No ping is sent, and
It appears to other users that a ping was sent, which can be a problem in some contexts. As far as they can tell, someone was pinged and they chose not to respond.

This can drive one crazy, but technical limitations prevent anything from being done about it. I find that it's usually enough to take the time to be extra careful when posting a comment containing one or more pings. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the explanation. I think I am going to sit this one out for now and wait until this vote is done. I don't want to mess with that anymore. I will take a look into how the pinging system works so this issue doesn't happen again. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 13:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you must not close a discussion that you yourself are involved with

Per WP:INVOLVED, when you have initiated a discussion, you must wait for an uninvolved editor or administrator to close the discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, which discussion are you referring to? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This concern was with respect to Talk:Chris Wright#Requested move February 2025. I have had this one taken care of already. BD2412 T 16:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate to see an escalation to ANI. I always advise new editors to make a thousand good edits in areas that they know and care nothing about before making their first edit in an area they do care about, in order to more fully understand the workings of Wikipedia. I also recommend making Chesterton's fence an axiom to live by. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits on Megyn Kelly

For NPOV:

"At Wikipedia, 'neutral' does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, 'neutral' means alignment with RS, including their biases.
'Neutral' in NPOV does not mean 'neutral' in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
Per NPOV, editors should be neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else [would] be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
Editors are 'neutral' when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not 'move' or 'balance' content to the center to keep an article 'neutral'. That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content."

—Valjean (talk), in response to claims that certain Wikipedia pages are written with a biased point of view. (March 5, 2024)

Theofunny (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that you reverted many of my edits on Megyn Kelly's page. Most of what I removed or simplified were things I originally added. After reviewing my contributions, I realized that some of the content was minor and not particularly noteworthy, making it inconsistent with Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policy. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 15:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted 3 of them and sorry for this edit summary. Megyn Kelly: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megyn Kelly: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, Here, I meant to say that we as wikipedians should strive for neutrality while editing despite what we might believe. Theofunny (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Milei - Wikipedia, Also the Cryptocurrency part had already been added with reliable sources before your edits. Please check the list of perennial sources to avoid using deprecated sources or those that aren't reliable at all. Theofunny (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well, and thankyou for correcting that, I was unaware of the already existing section. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]