User talk:EvidenceAlliquots

Suhaib Webb: Daily Caller, PeaceandTolerance.org, Washington Post op-ed - Reliable Sources?

I would like to start a discussion on how would the two articles referenced from the Daily Caller & PeaceandTolerance.org be viewed in light of the guidelines of a reliable source? Wikipedia's guidelines for "Biased or opinionated sources" state, "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Both of these publications are biased/opinionated and I feel both articles may potentially be disqualified for use in the article.

The Daily Caller: The article claims the Suhaib Webb is associated with an Al-Qaeda operative (Anwar Al-Awlaki) based on the fact that they both were part of a fundraiser in 2001. The article does not provide a source of the claims (an FBI document) and furthermore Al-Awlaki was not known to be an Al-Qaeda operative as of 2001 (which the article blatantly omits that fact). The lack of supporting references and the historically inaccurate characterization of Al-Awlaki lead me to conclude the article is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's guidelines.
PeaceandTolerance.org: Same as above.

I am adding to this discussion in light of two additional references that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines:

Washington Post Op-Ed [1]
- Opinion pieces are the specific views of individuals and cannot be considered a fair and reliable source since they are generally one-sided and lack neutrality.
PeaceandTolerance YouTube video [2] - Material from this organization cannot be considered reliable as there are many documented articles stating the organization's bias against Muslims

I propose to remove these references unless evidence is shown to prove that they should be considered reliable sources. --Djrun (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Warrior

Read WP:RS before using random YouTube channels as references. Find a better reference if you want to include claims. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame that experienced wiki users will make frivilous deletions just to 'up their count'. Just because an autopsy report by a medical doctor, analysed by another medical doctor is on youtube does not mean it is baseless and not a 'useful contribution' to wikipedia. Maybe the editors here know better than medical doctors when it comes to health and death issues. If so please provide your credentials and evidence, or is the only 'skill' that of deletion. If anyone senior and broadminded is looking at this - kindly at least look into the source posted, not just discriminate against a platform to up the wiki edit count and clique users backing one another up.

Go back to the original question - is it a 'useful contribution' to the wikipage? Genuinely ask yourself the question after having a good look at the material provided.

The source in question FYI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8fd7SnTosw&t=2520s

Seems like theres some real wikisnobbery on here just for the sake of it. Cyber ego over clear evidence based science and information. I'll leave you guys to it.

Self published videos from people claiming to be doctors does not a good source maketh. Especially when said “doctor” has a gmail contact address.

Find an actual reliable source and you can add the reference. Until you are able to provide one, the content stays out. Don’t like it? Try to change policy or contribute to a wiki project that allows quackery as evidence. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is ignorance personified. The source is in black and white - Dr Kevin Horns with clear autopsy documents - Maricopa County Medical Officer. * TRY READING FOR A CHANGE * Again illustrating how ignorant and lazy this gimlidot bot is just to inflate his/her online ego on topics he hasn't got a clue about. Deletion clearly gives him or her a sense of self esteem boost over those who have actual real world qualifications. Each to their own I guess, the internet sadly allows ignorance to prevail far and wide. And doctors cant have an gmail account? Is this the kind of infantile logic that rules wikipedia?

Update: Full formal complaint lodged at the ignorance and secondly the targetted blocking of only one side of the editwar.

Not only do you ignore WP:RS and WP:CITE, you are now clearly guilty of WP:NPA. It’s quite clear from your edit history that you’re not here to contribute collaboratively and in good faith. It is on you to provide the sources to support your additions. The videos you are using are not good enough. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Gimlibot is guilty of WP:NPA going by firstly his edit history and then mocking doctors' credentials as above (screenshot evidence added to complaint).

FYI the source that is accused of not being good enough and the doctors credentials being mocked by gimbibot: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/Warrior-autopsy-wiki.jpg

The irony of this user to claim others are not contributing in good faith simply because this evidence is presented on youtube, where he himself is deleting this quite signficant evidence to the fact in question is ridiculous. Its clear he is here just to up his edit count.

Updated and added to the complaint. Looking forward to the outcome.

what complaint? Your edits are public you know. Personal attacks aside, now you’re lying about your activity. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)?[reply]

Accusing me of lying is a violation of WP:NPA by User talk: GimliDotNet and an example of Cyberbullying. I do not feel safe on wikipedia because of his/her persistent online harassment.

[[3]] your hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]