Hongkongpenang (talk | contribs) →April 2024: Reply Tag: Reply |
Hongkongpenang (talk | contribs) →April 2024: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:4. Where is your counter source? |
:4. Where is your counter source? |
||
:This is utterly repulsive and disgusting behaviour from yourself. [[User:Hongkongpenang|Hongkongpenang]] ([[User talk:Hongkongpenang#top|talk]]) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
:This is utterly repulsive and disgusting behaviour from yourself. [[User:Hongkongpenang|Hongkongpenang]] ([[User talk:Hongkongpenang#top|talk]]) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Apologies, read the wrong comment, it was the New York Times indeed, which is still strongly left leaning: |
|||
::https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias#:~:text=The%20bias%20meter%20value%20for,the%20furthest%20%22Right%22%20value.&text=How%20we%20determined%20this%20rating,Independent%20Review |
|||
::https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/technology/russia-american-far-right-ukraine.html |
|||
::Utterly laughable, this makes your case even worse, it's even more biased than Washington Post. Furthermore also hid behind a paywall! What misleading claims? |
|||
::https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions |
|||
::https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians |
|||
::Is the HRW not reliable? More reliable than a single author with political bias, rather than an international investigative committee? |
|||
::You're an absolute disgrace to the open source information world. Unable to do coherent and valid research. [[User:Hongkongpenang|Hongkongpenang]] ([[User talk:Hongkongpenang#top|talk]]) 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 2 April 2024
October 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Li Shifeng, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
April 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charlie Kirk. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The New York Times is a reliable source. If you feel there's a reason to dispute it, please take it to the article's talk page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/23/charlie-kirk-rnc-ronna-mcdaniel-harmeet-dhillon/
- https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post-media-bias#:~:text=The%20Washington%20Post%20fact%20check,left%2C%20center%2C%20and%20right.
- The source used was the Washington Post. Washington post was independently reviewed as a LEFT LEANING source. How about using a NEUTRAL source. See, here's the thing with you people trying to put up a false narrative.
- 1. The source is paywalled disabling independent review of the actual source itself.
- 2. The source provided has contradicted your claim about bombings in Donetsk perpetrated by the Ukrainian army.
- 3. Yes he has spouted Russian propaganda, of which this simply ISN'T.
- 4. Where is your counter source?
- This is utterly repulsive and disgusting behaviour from yourself. Hongkongpenang (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, read the wrong comment, it was the New York Times indeed, which is still strongly left leaning:
- https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias#:~:text=The%20bias%20meter%20value%20for,the%20furthest%20%22Right%22%20value.&text=How%20we%20determined%20this%20rating,Independent%20Review
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/technology/russia-american-far-right-ukraine.html
- Utterly laughable, this makes your case even worse, it's even more biased than Washington Post. Furthermore also hid behind a paywall! What misleading claims?
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians
- Is the HRW not reliable? More reliable than a single author with political bias, rather than an international investigative committee?
- You're an absolute disgrace to the open source information world. Unable to do coherent and valid research. Hongkongpenang (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)