User talk:199.46.249.140

January 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to See Saw Margery Daw has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: See Saw Margery Daw was changed by 199.46.249.140 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.978432 on 2018-01-18T17:26:48+00:00.

May 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, 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.—J. M. (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm SunDawn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 2011 Capital One Bowl—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. SunDawn talk  14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Epoch Times seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at The Epoch Times, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I provided 3rd party source to back claim that "far-right" is not correct. This is not a "personal analysis" or "commentary". Rather the edits made are helping to more closely align the article WITH the neutral point of view policy. Note that, I did not blindly remove all instances of far-right, for instance it would be inappropriate to remove it from quotes. 199.46.249.140 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias 199.46.249.140 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/, here is another 3rd party analysis of political alignment of Epoch Times showing that the news outlet is right/conservative, not far-right. 199.46.249.140 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Perennial sources discusses Allsides. And see Media Bias/Fact Check. We can’t use or trust either source. Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If those aren't acceptable sources, then what source was used to objectively determine the news outlet is "far-right"? 199.46.249.140 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When did politics become objective? Doug Weller  talk 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It never was, that's the point. Which clearly you agree with, and yet insist on maintaining a non-neutral point of view on this article.
 * I get that the outlet has had quite a bit of negative attention, and I don't expect the quotes or sources with those negative views to be removed. This is valuable information for readers to have in order to form their own opinions about the outlet. What I do take issue with is that the article itself is biased. In the way it is written (particularly it's opening sentence and listed political alignment), it is claiming as fact that the news outlet is "far-right". When in reality it is opinion of the author of that sentence and the sources provided. If you insist that "far-right" be used to describe the outlet, then it should read something like,
 * "The Epoch Times is an international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement that is generally considered to be far-right."
 * This is a less biased approach, while still communicating the common perception (at least in the sources provided) that the outlet is "far-right". 199.46.249.144 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello, I'm ButterCashier. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2023 Canadian wildfires, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Conspiracy theorists? ButterCashier (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)