User talk:Beriboe

October 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Race and intelligence. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you made an edit to James Allsup regarding the wording of "far-right." I am not sure if you saw the hidden note beside the word, but there was a WP:Consensus on the talk page (see here), to use that language in the lead of the article. While Wikipedia does encourage bold editing, once your actions are reverted it is protocol to continue the discussion on the articles talk page. If you disagree with this wording you are encouraged to not revert again and instead take your opinion to the WP:Talk page to try and form a new consensus. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Allsup

Then where are the credible neutral citations for James Allsup being considered far right? By whom? Obviously by the far left. Get your center straight and stop name calling people and gas lighting people. He is just a right winger. His views are typical of conservative Americans. Nothing more nothing less. You won’t catch me donating to Wikipedia anymore as I generously have done in the past. Beriboe (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources listed in the article. I am not going to debate with you here. If you disagree, continuing to go against a formed consensus may get you blocked for disruptive editing. Use the talk page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James allsup

What you’re doing is called misinformation and biased representation and you are a part of he problem. Beriboe (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm Telfordbuck. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to BuzzFeed have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Telfordbuck (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add your own political views into articles

Wikipedia strongly discourages implementation of individual political views as factual information on articles. As an encyclopedia, the site builds on reliable, secondary sources and does not provide original opinions. Your edits, adding "far-left" to the lead of articles where a (usually different) political stance is explained in length, is not helpful. For example, reliable sources from newspapers as well as media bias analysis organizations have identified magazine Vox as liberal-leaning to liberal, but you incorrectly inserted "far-left" as its stance. Looking from the other side, you also frequently remove mentions of "far-right" and presenting your opinion as proof that you are correct (see above discussion for example). This behaviour is often considered disruptive and might lead to you being blocked from editing. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 22:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vox and Buzzfeed

How can you justify taking down such very basic information that I put up about these media sources, namely, that they are both left wing biased. This information is readily verifiable online on the most prominent fact / bias checking public websites. It’s accurate and you are actively censoring information. As for Vox, i made a mistake when I initially put in far-left because frankly that is what anyone in the political center and right-of-center can see when they are exposed to their far left content (cultural Marxist and post-modernist), but out of respect for the truth and a desire not to get I trouble with you guys I double checked and since the fact checkers say left (which in America means “liberal”) and not far left, I changed it to simply left-wing.

Why is it hard to accept that these sources are left leaning and that it is vital to have that mentioned? Its not hard for right wingers to say that their sources are right of center. Could it be that Wikipedia aldo has a left wing bias? If not, then why you are actively hiding basic information about media sources from the public?

Vox, Buzzfeed, Now This, Occupy, Politico are all left leaning and this should be mentioned at the very top of their pages. If you believe in serving the truth and that knowing the truth is good thing. Beriboe (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beriboe, the editorial stance of any media outlet or public image should described in its own sentence or section with in-depth information, such as the source of opinioin for a matter. Noting an outlet to be "left-wing" in the introduction without any context classifies it objectively, even though political leanings are matter of opinion (far-lefters consider everything less left as right, as is vice versa). I already mentioned Vox, where there is an entire section that discusses the opinion of two professional journalists from major newspapers describing the site as "leberal-leaning" and "mostly liberal", as well as two bias check websites that position Vox on the more-or-less liberal side. All four claims are matter of opinion and are not objective classifications (unless the organization also calls itself that), thus we, as an encyclopedia, should not handle it that way. This is not censorship, merely retaining encyclopedic values. warring about it is considered disruptive and might get you blocked from editing. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 12:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same

You are missing the point. The point is not what they say about themselves, but what their content says about them, and what others say about them, which is where the bias checking websites come in, and once you corroborate across several of those, why would you still argue ? According to thei content which is reflected in the bias checking ratings, Vox is basically far left. They are not slightly liberal, they are ultra liberal. They are extremely biased. No matter what they say about themselves. That is also what progressive means, today. Beriboe (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beriboe, they have never expressed their own political standpoint. Two media bias sites cited on the article describe it as "left-leaning to left", neither says "far-left", as you claim. And again, opinions on Vox's editorial stance are clearly outlined as a subjective matter in its own section, it is not an objective classification that should be presented in the first sentence of an article. Clearly, your opinion differs--and that's fine--but Wikipedia is just not the place to express that. Lordtobi (✉) 22:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same

This is what we call hypocrisy. Wkipedia states very simply and accurately that Daily Wire, Drudge Report, infowars and Breitbart are various shades of right wing / conservative. At the very top. First sentence even. So why then all this nonsense about simply stating the left wing bias of the outlets that I mentioned initially, like Vox. You can check virtually all of the bias and fact checking sites on google for each of them. By hiding this information from the public, people may think that these sources are NEUTRAL simpy because they call themselves that. I understand that most of the people involved in Wikipedia are liberal and left leaning and probably still tied closely to academia, understandably, but this just isn’t an excuse.

And again, I explicitlysaid that I corrected my initial change regarding Vox. I went back and edited what I wrrote from “far left” to simply “left”. And that’s what you guys removed, the word left. So there’s no need to keep mentioning that I said far left and that that’s what you changed when what you erased was simply “left”. And this is not because I didn’t believe that Vox is a platform for the far left, because it absolutely is, anyone on the right and center can see that, but because it wasn’t supported by all of the media bias sites, so I practiced moderation and restraint.

Let the light of truth shine, don’t produce shade and darkness.

Beriboe (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing policy

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please:

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also read WP:BURDEN. Sources like "AllSides.com" and "mediabiasfactcheck.com" are not reliable sources; they are primary, self-published sources. Even if they were attributed in-text, their citation is undue weight.

Don't reinsert material that another editor has removed on policy-based grounds. If you want to use a source, and another objections citing a policy and a reason why the policy applies, you have to go to WP:RSN, or to the appropriate article talk page, argue your case there, and obtain consensus before restoring the material.

Thanks,

--Neutrality^talk 00:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important alert relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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 recently 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 any 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.

Neutrality^talk 01:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Neutrality. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist bias

I’d like to hear the logic behind the claim that attacking someones obvious political bias after being shut down by way of their political bias amounts to a personal attack on their personhood. Please clarify. Beriboe (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is an attack. Don't do that again. You appear to be editing from your own point of view: you're not on very firm, ground to accuse others of POV editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to living or recently deceased people

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 recently shown interest in 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]