Stick2Fax

Welcome!

Hi Stick2Fax! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

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-1992 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. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Parler

You are obviously correct about the Parler article and a lot of people concur with your opinions (you'll find similar edit suggestions made by other users at the talk page archives). However, the article is currently being barricade by a group of users who are aggressively pushing their pov for political reasons. What I'm trying to say is: attenuating the bias at the Parler's article is (almost) a lost case. (that's why more neutral users do not engage with it). - Daveout(talk) 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this message! It's comforting to know I'm not out here on my own. From your perspective, do you see any opportunity to raise concerns with wiki directly? Has that already been done to no avail? Political keyboard warriors are ruining the credibility of wiki for the rest of us. Stick2Fax (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is something you could try, but that would require a lot ^{(and I mean A LOT)} of work and I personally do not think it's something that is likely to succeed (there is still a small chance tho): You could open a case at WP:NPOVN (that is where discussion concerning bias in articles take place), that should attract more input from other admins and ppl from other areas of the Wikipedia. You would have to make a very convincing case^{(yet brief, as most ppl do not engage with walls of texts)} based not only on good arguments, but also on guidelines and evidence. You would have to be very clear about the changes you want to make (It's is not enough to broadly say that the article "is biased", for example).

If you're willing to do that, you'll have to (1) make yourself familiar with WP guidelines, especially those concerning points of view. (2) You'll have to 'study' the article's talk page archives (currently, there are 3) to understand what has been proposed already and what are the objections against them. (3) You'll have to 'study' WP:NPOVN to understand how discussions normally develop. (4) that's basically it.

I remember seeing a suggestion similar to yours not long ago, here. (note the arguments made by Darouet and CapitainEek). - Daveout(talk) 00:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to read wp:v wp:undue and wp:rs, we base our articles on what the bulk of RS say about a subject.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)