User talk:213.47.44.99

January 2017

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fake news website have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

welcome to wikipedia

I've tried to answer your questions over at Talk:Fake news website. To put something into a wikipedia article, best practices are to WP:PROVEIT by linking to a newspaper/magazine/book/televisionNewsProgram/similar, which documents what you are adding. Also, you have to write in a neutral fashion, even when the source itself might be biased, so for instance you cannot just insert CNN into the first sentence of fake-news-website, since that is WP:UNDUE weight -- the term is fairly old, has been around since at least 2005, with precursors much earlier, and although there was a recent spate of coverage mentioning Donald Trump's altercation with the CNN journalist, that doesn't suddenly leap CNN to the top of the heap. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the bulk of the sources say, which means the CNN thing is WP:NOTEWORTHY for a sentence in the article somewhere (I'm trying to add a subsection on media bias but it is slow going), but the bulk of the sources do not say CNN is fake news at the moment, so wikipedia also ought not imply such things. Make sense? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

CFCF, you are reverting sourced additions with no edit-summary. While I agree that CNN logo does not belong in the Template:multiple_image portion, that is merely WP:UNDUE, and most definitely not WP:VANDALISM. 213.47, please wait until we get agreement (from interested wikipedians see WP:CONSENSUS) on the talkpage, about where specifically to insert the sourced material, before adding it again. As I mentioned before, some wikipedians are super-touchy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeatedly engaging in disruptive behavior and ignoring clear policies and consensus is vandalism. Please read the policies you linked to. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, they inserted it once without a source, and somebody reverted it, and then on the talkpage I helped them find some sources, so they re-inserted it. This is a beginner, not a vandal, and you have been around long enough to know the difference. You just complained yourself about WP:DONTBITE on your own talkpage on January 7th, did you not? Calling the insertion of sourced material, and the misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE -- one of wikipedia's most subtle policies may I please point out -- "vandalism" is completely silly. Calling two insertions of disputed material "disruptive" is also pretty silly. Cool down please Carl, this is not a wiki-emergency which requires drastic banhammer action, this is just somebody who needs calm guidance. As for your own actions 213.47, you are making some good-faith mistakes, but if you will stay calm yourself, I'm sure the other wikipedians will also soon be calmer  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This guy here is already 10 years on Wikipedia. He should know how it works. And if he acts like some child and is not able to just talk about it and tell me how to add it, then i don't think that the rest of the main Wikipedia authors are any better. Because if this would be the case, then some 10 year old user wouldn't act like that. Block me, if you want, i won't contribute anything more, if everything i have to expect is that someone with political bias will instantly delete it.213.47.44.99 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of striking some of your comments, since they were not very nice, per WP:IAR. I can do that because I've been here a long time, and understand when to apply IAR ... you however, 213.47, should please NOT yet go about applying WP:IAR and editing other people's comments, like on the article-talkpage. CFCF was themselves engaging in WP:IAR, methinks, though I disagree they were applying it correctly. Now, I do understand that you also feel that you have been treated shabbily, 213.47, since a couple wikipedians have falsely accused you of vandalism (which itself is not very nice AND they ought to know better). But as I tried to explain earlier, this particular wikipedia topic-page is a sensitive one, and it puts a lot of people on edge. So the best thing to do is stay calm and explain things on the article-talkpage, and we'll get to a proper addition at some point. I can tell you now though, that adding the CNN logo at the top won't happen -- it just isn't supported by the sources. Adding the well-sourced sentence about Trump calling that CNN journalist 'fake news' is pretty much guaranteed to be added, but the question is exactly where to add it (not in the first sentence and not in the overview -- mayhap we need a new subsection or mayhap it will go in 'definition' or in the 'united states' subsections that already exist). Until there is a fairly strong agreement on exact wording and exact placement, please do NOT add it back in again, you will only make the touchy people more touchy. I do see how hanging around a bunch of touchy people might not be very pleasant, but I can only say that most of wikipedia is not like this, and you have just picked an especially-touchy subject for your first editing-adventure in your wikipedia career. I would prefer you stick around, but if you are going to stay, you'll have to stay cool and not let such things get to you. Even wikipedians with a decade under their belt make mistakes, but that's no reason to accuse them of intentionally doing bad things. See WP:AGF, and yes I realize you are not getting the same courtesy in return at the moment, but two wrongs do not make a right. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to stay calm. I tried to discuss the issue on the Talk Page and tried to explain why it should be added and finally, after i thought that we managed to get somewhere and that i had an acceptable sentence with enough sources to add, some 10 year old user just reverts it, threatens me with a block and puts the discussion in the archive — without saying anything and without ever joining the discussion.

And finally he tries to explain to me that the statement of the President Elect of the US is totally irrelevant and that trying to mention it is vandalism.

The conclusion that CFCF has political bias is totally reasonable. It's not an insult, it's a fact. And i am not mad at him, because many people are not able to just ignore their own political opinion. But such a person should never ever have any responsibility in any politics related part of Wikipedia. If i do something wrong, i am sorry and i am thankful that you tell me that and i will try to improve myself, but anyway, i don't think that i will ever try to edit something in Wikipedia again, if people like CFCF exist.213.47.44.99 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No person is entirely politically neutral, but this is not the core of the issue. There is a clearly defined and accepted definition of what a "fake news website" is, and what it constitutes. CNN does not fulfill this definition, and reliable sources do not so much as suggest they do. When a political figure says something: that does not automatically make it factual — I would prefer not to have to make the comparison, but I daresay you would object if Duterte, Putin, or Xi stated this type of thing and Wikipedia went on touting it as a fact. Fact ≠ opinion, and the inability to distinguish them falls under WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED, and is one of few reasons to forego WP:BITE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And if some news station says it without having some reliable sources, it can be false too, like the Golden Shower Gate CNN reported — and sometimes, it's even deliberately false, like the GoldenShowerGate and PizzaGate. Then we talk about "Fake News"… such a coincidence, isn't it?

That you believe that it's false what Trump said (out of your personal political opinion) isn't important. If such a highly important person says something like that, it has to be part of the article. It's funny that you think that i don't realize that fact is not the same as opinion, because that's exactly what's your problem. Just because you quote something, doesn't mean that it's a fact.

You know, a good way to minimize the own political bias is to just switch names — if it somehow sounds different just because some other politician said it, then you know that you are biased. If Obama said something about Fake News of an major news station in an official press conference, would you quote it in the article? OH… WAIT!… Just read Fake news website:

"U.S. President Barack Obama said a disregard for facts created a "dust cloud of nonsense".[29] Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Alex Younger called fake news propaganda online dangerous for democratic nations."

Uuuups!!! Somehow this is not vandalism?! How is this possible? I am wondering!

To be honest: Please CFCF! Please stay away from political articles! You are just not able to realize your own bias.213.47.44.99 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)