There's a page about theNPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to theQuestions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or,click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Gohere.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check outWikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! :Jay8g[V•T•E]00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mAntandrus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have aneutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Antandrus(talk)22:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan:, note that, based on some of the mostWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doubling down I have seen in a very long while, I've modified your block to indefinite. There was no way that we weren't just going to end with the same issue after 31 hours.--Ponyobons mots23:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Factual information with sources cited was published on the Pioneer Village Salem, Massachusetts page. It was neutral and only stated facts. The information was targeted for removal by those with a political intent and personal attacks were made in the talk. The appropriate accounts should be blocked and not mine. The impartial, factual information should be returned to the page.ValueOurHistory (talk)22:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that multiple editors in good standing are trying to explain the issues with your edits - at least two of which (myself andAndyTheGrump (talk·contribs)) have been here for a while - suggests this isn't some grand political conspiracy; you're just disregarding valid criticism because you don't want to hear it. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques22:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of facts for you: firstly, Wikipedia requires material to be directly sourced topublished reliable sources, and secondly, attempting to cite 'the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties' (even with a link that worked) and claiming that it applies constitutesoriginal research, since the document in question makes no mention of the Pioneer Village. We do not publish original research. I suggest you drop the nonsense about 'political attacks' and 'bullies', and take the trouble to find out how Wikipedia actually works, if you wish to pursue this further (which wouldrequire published sources directly addressing the issue in question - this is not open to negotiation).AndyTheGrump (talk)22:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That document is the national standard for preservation. If you were trained in the field as I am you would know that. Your tone is unacceptable.ValueOurHistory (talk)22:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Material is directly sourced and the fact that people are fighting a violation of national preservation standards is not a soapbox or opinion. You are wrong.ValueOurHistory (talk)22:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cite no source discussing the Village. Such a source would be an absolute requirement for inclusion of content on this issue. This is not open to negotiation. Wikipedia policies apply whether you understand them or not, and whether you agree with them or not. If you want content on this issue incleded in the article, find the required sources, directly discussing the Village. There is no other option.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, you are likely to find yourself blocked indefinitely, since you seem incapable of understanding the policies and purpose of Wikipedia. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your personal opinions regarding 'standards', or anything else.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I contributed factual information with cited sources on an article for Pioneer Village in Salem, MA. that information was targeted and removed for political reasons. I then received personal attacks in the talk section. The facts presented were neutral but I was accused of soap boxing. Those who removed content for political reasons should be blocked and the content restored. My account should be unblocked and those responsible should be held accountable for bias.ValueOurHistory (talk)22:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lie. National standards are not original research. I have specifically citing facts. The content was absolutely neutral. Receiving personal attacks in the talk section, as I have received is CLEARLY bullying. Removing factual content is CLEARLY political especially in the context of the personal attack previously mentioned. You are wrong.ValueOurHistory (talk)22:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your source forbegan a project that would destroy the Camp Naumkeag cultural landscape located in another part of Salem (which I should note would alsorequireironclad sourcing)? Where's your source forThe reasons and justifications for the project are disputed and some Salem residents are resisting the project? Where's your source forThe city has not indicated that it would consider a demolition delay for the Pioneer Village cultural landscape and the future of America's first living history museum is uncertain? And where's your sources forthis screed you wrote on the article aboutKim Driscoll (which, again,requireironclad sourcing)? —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques23:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously….you can’t assess community pushback from a Facebook group rooted in community action by the members of that group? That is your serious assertion? This is a joke right? You have got to be kidding me.ValueOurHistory (talk)00:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're dead serious. A news article about community opposition would be better (and if one of the Salem News articles covers it, that would work). We don't cite social media in general except for verifying someone said something specific on it or in similarWP:ABOUTSELF fashion, and certainly not for something as controversial as you're painting this as. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll just point out at this point I have refuted EVERY ASSERTION made against me with clear facts and it ions. You’re just being argumentative because you are wrong over and over again.ValueOurHistory (talk)00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If those were the only qualifications, then yes, we could use them. But we're looking foreditorial oversight - i.e. articles going through a fact-checking process that includes correcting or retracting articles that have errors. Social media doesn't have that - in fact, the concept is antithetical to the entire idea of social media in the first place. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the Salem governmental source? That article states that it is a proposal very clearly, whereas your edits constantly say the project has already begun, citing no sources. Unless one of the two paywalled Salem News sources says it's begun - and given their titles I'm doubtful that is the case - we can't have that in the article as it would failverification. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s gone through demolition delay in the historical commission. Of course it’s begun! You clearly have no idea what the process is and you’re making decision based on pure ignorance even when given CLEAR sources! Wow! Is this how you function because it’s deplorable!ValueOurHistory (talk)00:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't.And neither does the 99.8% of Wikipedia's audience that lives outside the Salem, Massachusetts area. This is why we insist onsummarising sources as they are written, not ashow a local would interpret them. Which means you need to come up with a source thatexplicitly and unambiguously states that the process has begun. After all, if this is as controversial as you make it out to be, then the demolition would have made at least local, if not state or county, news. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did and the sources were provided. Including the city’s own webpage. WHICH I CLEARLY PROVIDED ABOVE. So there’s that! Really just deplorable!ValueOurHistory (talk)00:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The competence level here is astoundingly low. I doubt very highly that all contributors are scrutinized to this level when they provide clear sources but get interrogated by low effort reviewers.ValueOurHistory (talk)00:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve presented facts and sources. None of your arguments have been valid and I have provided materials addressing every single one of them. Your low effort is not an arguementValueOurHistory (talk)00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone but you holds that position. The only sources they might differ from me on are the Salem News sources, and that's because I can't read them due to the paywall (and I'm not paying for a local news subscription that isn't in my neck of the woods). —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors sometimes make mistakes when they are unaware of how Wikipedia works; it's understandable, there area lot of policies and guidelines. Many of these editors who find themselves blocked review the policies and guidelines that they had (often inadvertently) breached and modify their behaviour to avoid similar issues going forward. You have made it clear that aren't willing to even review the policies that are being provided here or to listen at all to what other editors are trying to explain to you. That is battleground, uncollaborative behaviour that demonstrates that you are here to push a specific point of view as opposed to working civilly with others. This is not how we build this encyclopedia.--Ponyobons mots23:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In rethis edit and all others alleging personal attacks I will note that Idid see the personal attacks in question and actually contactedsuppressors privately to hide anything that could be construed as an attempt toidentify you off-Wikipedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read theguide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to theUnblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.
Hello, I'mAntandrus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have aneutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Antandrus(talk)22:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isTopic-ban/indef block ValueOurHistory. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
