User talk:216.175.28.83

Trump bias
The fatal flaw in your thinking: Article talk pages are not for actual intelligent debate on the issue of bias. Feel free to offer specific, policy-based suggestions for article improvement, or take more generalized discussion to Village pump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have a law practice to attend to. I dont have all day to sit and argue with retired trump haters that continously remove and archive numerous valid topics created about bias. There is no fatal flaw in my thinking. The fatal flaw here is the refusal to acutually entertain and discuss the concerns of readers/the people.
 * Wikipedia, afterall, at least at its conception, was supposed to be based on facts. Not subjective opinions. But objective science based facts.
 * I do not sit here an raise red flags for mere humor. I have a genuine concern for the article's future impact on people reading it years from now.
 * Assuming you're a serious person. You should too. Quit playing the kick the ball down to a different page game. Be better. 216.175.28.83 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't bring up any concrete concerns. If you have any factual, concrete concern about bias present in the article, feel free to raise it.
 * We are not going to remove criticism/legitimate problems Trump has faced (i.e. whitewash the article) just because you think it's "biased". Perhaps, if you think that his article shows bias, you need to reexamine your own beliefs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been at that article since 2015. We used to try to entertain such generalized discussion on that page, and a ton of editor time was spent going absolutely nowhere&mdash;over, over, and over again, without end. Learning from that experience, we instituted the standard response and the 24-hour archival "policy". Almost without exception, the only people who object are people who do not understand Wikipedia content policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there were also editors who would simply remove posts like yours outright (shoot on sight), believing that Trump supporters are essentially evil by definition. I was one of those who felt a good-faith complainer deserved a respectful and clear explanation; something complete without being overly long or detailed, and something that could be provided without requiring a lot of editor time. My view ultimately prevailed, and consensus #61 is the result. Like it or not, consensus is the cornerstone of Wikipedia process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You really should not continue to post in closed discussions after they are closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)