User talk:Yetanwiki

Yetanwiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yetanwiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hasbro, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please note that the source you included in your edit is not considered a reliable source, per WP:VERITAS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"unreliable sources" does not mean "sources which go against my personal bias". You - and many other editors - are shooting the messenger instead of looking at the message, the contents of which are clear and in no way edited. May I suggest anyone who has a bone to pick with the selection of sources - both those who agree with the current version of "neutrality" as well as those who want to go back to the original implementation - to read one of the interviews with Larry Sanger, better known as the co-founder of the Wikipedia project? Here's what he has to say on this specific subject:

• You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream centre-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia does not just mirror the biases found in the mainstream news media, because some of it is conservative or contrarian. A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia. Beyond that, many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller. Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly “radical”; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no “reliable sources” available to report about them. .

In this specific case - Hasbro forcing employees to undergo racist 'training sessions' based on critical theory - it is abundantly clear the this news will not make it into the list of 'reliable' media until its publication in alternative media has whipped up enough of a storm and even then it will only be published in such a way that it can be used as damage control. Even if you might not agree with Project Veritas' bias - which they clearly have, just like any other news outlet - that does not mean you can simply ignore whatever they say on the pretence of them 'not being reliable'. Many of the so-called 'reliable' sources on the list of perennial sources are known to publish lies which they need to retract later yet still they are labelled as 'reliable'. This is not the accepted definition of the term 'reliable', a better term would be 'acceptably biased'. Yetanwiki (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Bana en iyi 5 mobil oyun videosu hazırla

Akıcı ve kısa olsun 5.47.247.214 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)