User talk:Fake News Extinguisher

Welcome![edit]

Hi Fake News Extinguisher! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternately, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! GPL93 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biases[edit]

I understand you dislike Russia but please stop vandalizing articles this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Edit: I now realize you're probably a troll but if not, realize that all news sources have their biases. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" news network! News you assume to be reliable may not always be, and that of course goes for my most trusted news sources too, whether it is Fox, BBC, RT, TeleSur, CNN etc. Each have a different agenda. Use your critical thinking skills104.205.246.188 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not racist and have nothing against Russia or against Russians. I just don't like their undemocratic and authoritarian dictator and his regime and his allies. The BBC at least try to tell the truth on things. --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRIB[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes The reliable sources are all over the place. I just wanted to give an early-on indication as a build-up as to what was going to be coming along. I know all about RS. The BBC is a good example of RS. The BBC tells us that Press TV and its parent polity the IRIB are state owned instruments of lies, false news and propaganda and more importantly, there to push non-democratic policies. I just didn't think it would be a good idea to move the sources from lower down to the top. I've read it somewhere that LEDE discourages too many sources too early on, and on that article we need the same sources further down in the deeper writings. WP also advises too heavily against using a single source for too much. --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate what you say. It's just that when very strong allegations are made, they ought to be supported immediately by a reliable citation. I apologise if I missed seeing subsequent cited statements which made the same direct allegations. Would you kindly show me which ones in the article text you were summarising in the lead, as I still can't find them? Personally, I would have quoted directly from the US government's press centre briefing (here) which seems to make all the allegations you need. Then, and only then, would it be ok to summarise that allegation in the lead paragraph. So, please take care always to edit in a neutral, fair and encyclopaedic manner, putting any person opinions aside (no matter how valid they may be). And avoid making assumptions that people read the citations, even though they are critically important. That's the way people here get good reputations for being fearless, neutral editors who want to present the truth, and not POV-pushing editors who make very visible yet unsupported allegations which can't be found in the rest of the article. Thank you for replying as you did, but equally, non-neutral edits like this one of yours are simply unacceptable in this encyclopaedia. Be advised - you've been here two days. If you hope to be around for longer, take care not edit in a non-neutral manner, which will simply comes across as POV-pushing, with inevitable outcomes. With a username like you've chosen your edits are certainly going to come under scrutiny, I can assure you.

By the way, you say (above) that you know all about RS - have you edited here under another previous account name? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your last question. I've read WP:RS and that's all there simply is to it. I am computer-savvy and so hitting "edit" and navigating is generally easy for me and I have been reading Wikipedia for many years anyhow. This way for example I know blue links from red links etc etc but yeah, I don't know *ALL* of the policies. To answer you earlier points, I was thinking of sources such as https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/04/nick-cohen-press-tv-hatred . Note I have never restored a reverted edit and yes it is my intention to be reasonable and to follow procedures. Thanks for taking an interest. --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am an adminstrator here, so I like to support and guide new editors if I can. One does have to be careful discerning opinion pieces from standard journalist articles. What one should do is to state that well-known person xxx described organisation yyy as "insert quote here", and then cite other critical comments from reliable sources to support that view. Wikipedia's voice is neutral, and should present both sides to any topic. What we don't say is "organisation xxx is a bunch of tree-hugging hippies", we say (citing evidence) that it is widely regarded as an unreliable source of information, presenting views xxx and yyy, and that notable person zzz has described it as a "bunch of tree-hugging hippies"" I hope that makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Surnadal. Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist - Pro NOUN ciation? Are you sure? --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]