Parkrun1999

July 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Page protected with pending changes level 1 Jimmy Dore. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I will find references for future edits. Parkrun1999 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Cenk Uygur. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

O3000 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi. Your revert to CNN violated the "Consensus required" restriction on that page. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of that article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. This is explained on the article's Talk Page. No doubt you missed it. I suggest that you self-revert your revert. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, O3000. Sorry for my error, it has already been reverted again. The reason I put the edit in was to try and encourage a neutral point of view in the article, in addition to summarizing criticism in an encyclopedic tone with references. I am disappointed that it was reverted so quickly. I would be interested in your point of view. Thanks Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that most of the stories are negative in no way suggests bias. For example, you will find that most news stories about a rapist are negative. That doesn't mean the sources are biased. They are just reporting the news. I don't mean to compare the subject to a rapist. I'm just showing the problem with the argument. In fact, I don't remember the study itself concluding any bias; and we are not allowed to draw our own conclusions. In any case, the Harvard study has been brought up on many occasions. It just doesn't tell us anything in isolation. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You might look at CNN controversies. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I think in principle you are absolutely right. However, it is fairly clear to me that CNN are biased against Trump, both with the people on the opinion shows and the breakfast show. CNN is clearly a liberal network in my view but it will be hard to show it encyclopedically When I watch CNN it seems like the presenters often try to talk the moral high ground, normalizing anti-trump rolling coverage and often interrupting conservative speakers. Maybe it is in part because trump slanders CNN as fake news. I just feel there is a double standard with this compared with Fox. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

PS (edit conflict) I looked at the controversies and I think it is such a shame that the paragraph touching on CNN bias suggested in the CNN talk page is omitted from both the CNN and the CNN controversies page. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I have put it in CNN controversies. Parkrun1999 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Fox according to several of its own former commentators is extraordinarily biased. For 10 years, Ralph Peters regularly appeared on Fox News to offer military analysis and insight as one of the cable network’s reliably conservative commenters. But he quit in March in disgust. “With the rise of Donald Trump, Fox did become a destructive propaganda machine,” Mr. Peters said. “And I don’t do propaganda for anyone.” O3000 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I just feel CNN is exactly the same the other way. I understand that the bias itself is hard to indisputably prove, partly because other networks such as MSNBC are just the same. My opinion only, I just feel the helps for balance and consistency. However you have put a good case arguing against, so I understand a lack of consensus for my proposal. Parkrun1999 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Breitbart News. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you. How did I vandalise the page? Parkrun1999 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This[1] is vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think Trump will win in 2020. The American public, like Craig David, have decided to #walkaway from the trouble in their life that liberalism has caused, taken the red pill and have found a better place. It will be even funnier than 2016. Parkrun1999 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to engage in political debates. If you can't get over your politics and contribute productively, you will be shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I will stop it. However, I am worried that Breitbart is being slandered and Wikipedia or WMF may be dragged into lawsuits, bankrupting the site. I feel strongly as a frequent user of Wikipedia that I have a moral duty to prevent this happening so that the legacy of this platform can be preserved.

I therefore conclude that the far right label must be removed immediately, with an unreserved apology to Breitbart, who's reputation has been permanently tarnished. Parkrun1999 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. The fact that Breitbart is a far-right publication is a verifiable fact, and as such, is not considered libel under US or commonwealth law. There is and has been a strong consensus here for us to include all relevant facts in our articles. The fact that Breitbart is a far-right organization is absolutely relevant. All of this was made clear in the comment you vandalized. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well said. However, my only concern is that all the sources may have put far-right in not as a fact, but as a collective falsehood to marginalise a group who do not share their opinions, by making readers think they are fascist. If I am wrong in thinking that is a lie, then clearly the far right label can stay. Parkrun1999 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we know your opinion by now. But, none of our opinions matter one whit. We document based upon reliable sources. Your edits are, more and more, looking like vandalism. You need to completely ignore your own opinions and just edit based on reliable sources. An editor must be able to support edits that they don't personally like and reject edits that they personally think are true. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

...a collective falsehood... If you cannot accept the conclusions of reliable sources you have absolutely no business whatsoever editing this project, and should leave immediately. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)