User talk:Balance66

Reverts

Hello, please discuss at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden#Dropping last 9 days in the daily death graph. Let's prevent the misleading effect. Also, with 4 edits in total before engaging in this conflict, I don't think you should go around reverting actual contributors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think an editor like you with almost no Wikipedia contribution should be reverting other editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said 'It cannot be "obviously misleading" if it's official data [...]': Do you really think so? Why cannot official data be misleading? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be misleading, you are right there. But my main point is that it was a continuation of a pre-existing data set. If it's the data source itself then the entire data source should be out. If you're using partial data from an official source, then the rest of the data that extends the set should be treated the same. I get where you're coming from that the way the delay around numbers will skew the chart, but I would say either call attention to that, (similar to how stock tickers say "data delayed 15 minutes") or just allow the chart to correct itself as the new numbers come out. You don't actually know that the slope will change.--Balance66 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know the slope will change, and the revision history of the Sweden article bears testimony to that: it shows how at any revision there is a steeply falling final slope that is continuously being pushed to the right. It's in the revision history, right there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"allow the chart to correct itself as the new numbers come out": The chart never corrects itself: upon an update, the previously wrongly low columns get corrected upwards but at the same time new incorrectly low columns get added to the right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Thomas Woods, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial^# 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one being non-neutral, the person insisting on ascribing pejorative attributes like "white supremacy", "anti-semitism" and "Nazi" to the page when the person involved had nothing to do with any of it, is non-neutral and biased. I'm ready to report the editor who keeps re-adding it, so let's at least move it to the talk section of the page. where people can try to make the case (with a straight face) that mudslinging those terms into this page is neutral and unbiased. Balance66 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial^# 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial^# 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thomas Woods. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]