User talk:FactZheker

Help me!

Please help me with...

Politically Motivated Deletion

I recently had an entire edit that included cited sources and links deleted. I suspect it was politically oriented as any perceived biased language could have been edited out while maintaining the integrity of the factual information that was added. I need to request a review of the admin activity of account drmies. He appears to be a political operative and has deleted tens of thousands of edits and has blocked tens of thousands of users. How do I request a review? FactZheker (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Helped. I suppose you are referring to Special:Diff/1000401561 that Drmies undid. I would have undone it as well. First of all, you ought to talk about it with Drmies, e.g. on the article talk page. You could follow up with the steps outlined in WP:ADMINABUSE, but I'd say you're not likely to get much support from other editors. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Happy editing, Sam Sailor 01:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, thank you. I gotta be honest, I'm getting pretty damn tired of all these cries of admin abuse, right-wing vandalism, politically motived edits--this was earlier today. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

my talk pageI cited a source for everything I added. Every single thing. It is a clear bias when edits with extensive cited sources, using nationally trusted news sites and congressional press releases from the Person themselves, get deleted. I am not politically motivated nor am I a "right-wing" vandal. I was asked to provide edits and given a list of items to include. If your true motives weren't political censorship then you would have reviewed the sources and deleted any biased language while leave the factual information, which it all was. Just because the actions of a politician are extreme, like Reschenthaler's racism and apology for said racism, doesn't mean that inclusion of those extreme actions in a biography is politically motivated. It's factual. It's who Reschenthaler was. I challenge both of you to find inaccurate items in what I added. FactZheker (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

You presume the sourcing is the only issue that dictates whether content stays or goes. It's not. I would strongly advise you to find a different topic area for now, because if you keep going like this you're likely to find yourself in trouble sooner rather than later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Jéské CourianoClearly political bias decides if something stays or goes, as even the items that were sourced back to Reschenthaler's own Congressional Press Releases were deleted. Sources that are recognized as purely local news sources with no opinion slant such as KDKA, WESA, and WTAE, were deleted. I did not cite Breitbart, I did not cite Infowars, I did not use any opinion pieces. It's sad how the political censorship is dictating which information is archived for condensed consumption. FactZheker (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker I didn't realize that including Reschenthalers most impactful, meaningful and prolific actions as a member of Congress was "right-wing vandalism" FactZheker (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker My Edit: Reschenthaler was forced into quarantine after a corona virus exposure. Far Right Admins: That's getting deleted because it's biased.FactZheker (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 GeneralNotability (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have submitted an edit, a single edit. It was removed. I attempted to seek the the proper channels of remdiation to undo some or all of the deletion. I was met with salacious libel by the same admin that deleted my edit. Another person responded, basing their opinion of me on the libelous statement by drmies. Now another admin is either presumably threatening me and my account or already has done so while accusing me of not following the rules. Is this not my private talk page? Did I continue trying to edit or participate in any malicious activity on the site? Once I realized what happened I tried to do the right thing. This feels like a political targeting by multiple members now. I'm doing these edits for a client and not for myself, as I made clear before. Not one of the issues or concerns I raised about individual items have been addressed, just a blanket disregard and smearing of my reputation with threats to limit my ability to seek further participation in the site. That is hardcore censorship. FactZheker (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

January 2021

Hello FactZheker. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:FactZheker. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=FactZheker|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Template:Z159 Sam Sailor 04:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Not receiving compensation, this is purely pro bono as I was testing the waters but now feel that it be a much better venture if I work to expose the political censorship and biased omission. FactZheker (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Sam I have updated in accordance with the terms of service, though it wasn't necessary at all as no compensation is received from my clients as further explained in my "About Me" section. I still have not received any response as to what specifically about the information I added was untrue and unworthy of being included in a Wiki Bio. I checked the Terms and looked at the rules, nothing I posted violated any of it. I would like a list, line by line of what was untrue, irreparably biased, or defamatory in the things that I sourced. Please don't cry to another one of your friends like the other people did after refusing to address the concerns I've raised directly. FactZheker (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker