→Pulitzer: Replying to Sychonic (using reply-link) |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
Wikipedia should be above these partisan squabbles, or individual opinions on the matter, and stick with a proper encyclopedia's dispassionate neutrality. Wikipedia editors have to decide whether they want a reference source or an editorial page.[[User:Sychonic|Sych]] ([[User talk:Sychonic#top|talk]]) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia should be above these partisan squabbles, or individual opinions on the matter, and stick with a proper encyclopedia's dispassionate neutrality. Wikipedia editors have to decide whether they want a reference source or an editorial page.[[User:Sychonic|Sych]] ([[User talk:Sychonic#top|talk]]) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Sychonic}}, you're not one who edits pages much at all. You have 619 edits, total. Me, I edit quite a bit (16 years, >150,000 edits, tens of thousands of articles). |
|||
:But that's not the important bit. The important bit is that you are rewriting the content to cast the fraudit as a valid audit of votes, ''based on sources that say the opposite''. All reliable sources are unanimous: the Arizona fraudit is a partisan stunt being run by a QAnon / Big Lie conspiracist. They are comically incompetent, almost certainly in violation of Federal election law, and their "auditors" include people who took part in the Jan 6 insurrection. |
|||
:But the place for this discussion is [[Talk:J. Hutton Pulitzer]]. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:03, 16 May 2021
Welcome!
|
November 2015
Hello, I'm Alessandro57. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Aghlabids has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Those leftists
I appreciate the feelings you expressed on the Andy Ngo page. I've found it frustrating that much of the content regarding reporter who is critical of the far left is coming from sources who seem to be very sympathetic to the far left. That said, I personally gave up suggesting the motives of other editors a while back. I've seen a few cases where an editor feels they are just calling a spade a spade but it goes before ANI and they get a tban or similar. If you are brave your input would be welcome on that article but do be aware that I've seen a lot of editors get tbanned from that article because they voiced their opinions vs WP:FOC. Things won't get better if all the concerned editors are voted off the island! Springee (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Pulitzer
I know you are a relatively inexperienced editor, with well under a thousand edits. You are trying to frame the Arizona election "audit" as a good-faith effort, but every credible source disagrees with you. It is a partisan effort by Republicans to undermine faith in an election theitr guy lost, and is restricted to the areas that voted Democratic, and the races in which they voted Democratic. That's not an audit. There already was an audit and recount, and it showed no fraud - that's why the GOP brought in the QAnon crazy guy in the first place. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not one who edits pages obsessively, and until recently have not seen as much need to. Recently I've seen a distinct tendency of bias in Wiki pages, far more than when I began reading it, which was long before I even created an account. Things on Wiki have taken a turn toward crudely political description and viewpoint in many of its articles. The political left has evidently decided that all things in any form of media must reflect a political slant. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, opinion here is irrelevant. The Arizona Legislature is an elected body, that includes representatives of its people and the election there was won by under 11,000 votes. It might be a case of frustration at the narrowness, but over 70% of Republicans in the U.S. think the election was fraudulent, and that translates into vast millions of people. Also, it's impossible to know how many Democrats think the same, yet would not say, since they liked the outcome. As to the outfit doing the auditing, whether it meets your standards is hardly relevant since it was good enough for the Arizona State legislature. You do not qualify as a source, an neither do I.
The results of the audit, or whatever you prefer to call it, have already shown resistance by officials in the main county where questions have arisen (Maricopa). The hostility of the American Media is more an example of its unrelenting hostility toward all things Trump -- it's unlike anything I've ever seen before, and that's since the Reagan hatred of the 80s. A good question has been asked but not answered: What is everyone afraid of? If all is as the hostile voices claim, the result will show it and perhaps persuade some that the election was fair after all.
Wikipedia should be above these partisan squabbles, or individual opinions on the matter, and stick with a proper encyclopedia's dispassionate neutrality. Wikipedia editors have to decide whether they want a reference source or an editorial page.Sych (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sychonic, you're not one who edits pages much at all. You have 619 edits, total. Me, I edit quite a bit (16 years, >150,000 edits, tens of thousands of articles).
- But that's not the important bit. The important bit is that you are rewriting the content to cast the fraudit as a valid audit of votes, based on sources that say the opposite. All reliable sources are unanimous: the Arizona fraudit is a partisan stunt being run by a QAnon / Big Lie conspiracist. They are comically incompetent, almost certainly in violation of Federal election law, and their "auditors" include people who took part in the Jan 6 insurrection.
- But the place for this discussion is Talk:J. Hutton Pulitzer. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)