User talk:OmegaSixtyTwo

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

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.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have confused the encyclopedia with journalism. Wikipedia relies on academic research and journalism for its content - it is a tertiary source. Attacking editors because you think they must have personally researched, say, cobalt or interviewed sources at NASA to write about the Apollo program is wrong. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if something is correct or not, that the editor of a topic page should not have to do any work, fact checking, or actual journalism in order to mock serious topics that have known political smear campaigns funded by government and other media sources? Cool. Clearly you, the post editor, and Wikipedia have absolutely ZERO journalistic integrity OmegaSixtyTwo (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do lots of work and lots of fact checking. You are correct that we do zero "actual journalism", however; we primarily rely on secondary sources. If you would take two seconds to read any of the links I have given you giving even the quickest overview of Wikipedia this would not come as a shock. It is bizarre that you continue to insist that we ought to be journalists, as two of us now have repeatedly stated that Wikipedians are encyclopedists, not journalists. If you are concerned with journalism's treatment of the boogaloo movement, I would suggest you go find an actual journalist to discuss it with. If that's what you're trying to do here, you're in the wrong place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source - it summarizes material in mainstream journalism and academic research - secondary sources - like any other encyclopedia. This is not new or unusual. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I insist you try being actual journalist because what you're doing is furthering propaganda and lies. If Wikipedia encourages disinformation than that only further perpetuates the phrase "fake news". People use this site as an educational tool, and as far as the original post I was referring to, they will not learn the truth. OmegaSixtyTwo (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can walk up to a doctor and insist they should be doing the job of a firefighter, but it makes about as much sense to do so as what you're trying to do here. You're talking to the wrong people. Again, if you have concerns with the reliability any of the sources that we, as a tertiary source, are using, that is a relevant conversation and I've explained how you can follow up on your concerns. But if you continue to insist that we go do our own research/journalism, something that is expressly forbidden by a core Wikipedia policy, you will not have any success. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]