Talk:English Bay, Vancouver

message: If anyone is interested, here's an interesting set on Flickr, licensed CC-BY
Have a look. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Bay rock stacks (rock art) 

message: This edit  by Deepavali 2014 actually introduces bias into the article, and saying that the cleanup efforts were "exceptional and world class" does not conform to WP:NPOV.  One issue is that it uses peacock terms (see WP:PEACOCK), another is that it appears to give undue weight to a particular POV (see WP:UNDUE), another is that it doesn't use an impartial tone (see WP:IMPARTIAL) about a controversial subject (oil spills).  I reverted their edit, and then I tried to approach the editor on their Talk page.  I encouraged them to read the policies and asked them to change their other edits as appropriate.  They responded by reverting my original revert , and leaving this message on my Talk page: Some reports are that the oil spill is not that bad and that is not coming from the ship or oil company. The mayor may be biased because he has a political agenda. I didn't see it and even if I did, user reporting is not allowed. Please do not have only a pov article. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)  
Since user talk pages are for discussing editor conduct, not article content, I've moved the discussion here (which is why I gave the above background info, so that other editors reading this understand the relevant context and history thus far), and I've reverted the edit again because it has NPOV issues and the editor refuses to actually justify the content, simply saying that it's actually required for the article to be neutral (just the opposite is true based on my understanding of NPOV and OR).  Some of Deepavali 2014's other edits to unrelated articles demonstrates they don't have a clear understanding of what NPOV actually means.  I also discovered when getting the links for this post that this user already was reverted once by another editor before me for the same edit, see .
"Bias" doesn't mean every single viewpoint has to be represented.  In fact, some viewpoints shouldn't be represented on Wikipedia at all, because (for example) they're original research.  Other viewpoints shouldn't be included because they cannot be verified and no reliable source is provided.  Deepavali did provide a possible source for the edit, but just because someone said something doesn't mean we automatically include it in an article on that subject.  If we do, we must be careful not to give undue weight to any particular POV.  This means that minority viewpoints should generally be represented as such, and not given the same amount of attention as majority POVs.  The pages I've linked to explain this better and in more detail.
Deepavali, please don't revert my edit again or put the content back into the article until it's been discussed here.  Two independent editors reverted the content for justified reasons that it violated policy - let's not have an edit war.  Will you please read the content of the links I placed on your talk page in my original message?  Let's work together to improve Wikipedia.  LibertyOrDeath (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues in edits by Deepavali 2014 

message: This is good for wikipedia.
As far as the other comments by LibertyOrDeath,
1. She admits not knowing the oil spill was recent and not being from Canada. This is probably the reason for bias. The original version simply said there was an oil spill and the mayor was critical of the response...end of paragraph. Foreigners wouldn't know that the mayor is in a political fight with the federal government and purposely criticizes every little thing out of habit. He is trying to get a closed coast guard station reopened so the oil spill is a big excuse. There are citations linking the desire to blame the closing of the coast guard station on the oil spill clean up. The truth is probably that the oil spill was very small and the coast guard station would have done nothing. The mayor is also mad because if the coast guard station is closed he wants the money coming from selling the land for homes, not the federal government, who owns the land.	Did Liberty know this....no. That is why we should not allow Wikipedia to be the stooge and mouthpiece of a politician.
Also, as far as she, I didn't know Liberty was female but, out of respect and the American program of Affirmative Action, I tend to address everyone as she. Deepavali 2014 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  oil spill coverage is no longer shockingly biased, which is good for wikipedia