User talk:Ado523

I read the sources, they were not definitive and offered only opinion-based language.

May 2022
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Alex Trebek, 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. Thank you. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Beagle, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what content I added? I only re-worded obvious opinions with factual alternatives. Nothing I edited required citation as it did not add content. Ado523 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
Is there any way to get a specific explanation of how my edit contradicted the previously accepted source? After reading the cited source for myself I used language that more closely reflected the source material than what had previously been written Ado523 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that it's not just your edits to the Joe Rogan article, but your edits to Vivek Ramaswamy. Again, you are introducing ambiguity where there are definitive statements. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is correct, upon reading the source material it is clear that these sources are not making definitive, evidence-based claims but rather editorializing their own ideas onto the quotes. Rogan is never quoted as trying to “dissuade” people from getting vaccinated. Rama Swamy is never quoted as saying he would “expand presidential power” or “pledge to rule by fiat”. Those are the opinion of the poster based on a biased reading of these men’s positions. If you read the source material and quotes provided by both men, you will see that the ambiguous language is much more appropriate than what was previously posted. Ado523 (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves, just as you did. You are free to disagree with everything presented here, as Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source. A source being biased does not in and of itself preclude its use on Wikipedia as long as sources use journalistic standards of review and integrity. If a source is making things up out of whole cloth or not adhering to mainstream journalistic standards, that's another matter, but you aren't alleging that, you just disagree with how the source describes its information. You are free to contact the sources and get them to change their reporting or issue corrections, or you may offer sources you have that provide your preferred viewpoint. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But I’m also disagreeing with the wording in the Wikipedia article not being congruent with the wording in the source provided. The sources don’t provide definitive statements, yet the wording in the Wikipedia article makes it sound like there are definitive statements. For example - the Wikipedia article on Joe Rogan alleges he has tried to “dissuade” people from getting the COVID vaccine. Then in the source cited it does not say anywhere that he has said or done that. It’s an inaccurate description of the source being cited, not just a difference of opinion on Rogan’s views. I know Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source, but what’s the point of requiring citation if the content of the Wikipedia article doesn’t even have to agree with the source cited? Ado523 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You've already had three admins reject that argument; you can try to find one to agree with you, but you're running out of chances. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim that Rogan didn't try to dissuade people from getting vaccinated is utter nonsense. Take this, for example.
 * "“If you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I’ll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person? Like, look, don’t do anything stupid, but you should take care of yourself. You should — if you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well, like, I don’t think you need to worry about this,” Rogan rambled during Friday’s episode of the “Joe Rogan Experience” featuring comedian Dave Smith.
 * The article cites multiple sources concerning Rogan's comments on COVID-19, and they are more or less unanimous in describing it as misinformation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The word dissuade means he is actively trying to get people not to take it. What you have described is someone saying “I don’t think you need it”. Totally different, which is why the ambiguous language is more accurate. In that same article Rogan says “I’m not an expert, don’t listen to me”. Ado523 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing ambiguous. Rogan was spreading misinformation, and discouraging people from getting vaccinated. Out article says so. It cites multiple sources to back this up. If you have a problem with Wikipedia not conforming to your own self-evident bias against accurately reporting what sources say, that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Easy on the hostility. I have not inserted my opinion in this conversation other than the definition of words. You used the word “discourage” rather than “dissuade” which also adds ambiguity to a definite statement. I would agree with using discourage rather than dissuade so we actually agree much more than you think we do but you are letting your emotions take over. Ado523 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that you clearly aren't going to be permitted to edit Wikipedia, I don't give a rat's arse with what you 'agree with'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I offended you, I thought we were having a pleasant conversation about the meaning of words. Ado523 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think Mr. Rogan's statement is not an attempt to dissuade, I must agree with AndyTheGrump, it's your problem. You're stuck arguing semantics to try to get them to fit your preferred viewpoint. There really isn't a pathway forward for your here. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many different viewpoints and I can guarantee you don’t know what my preferred one is. Apparently arguing for proper word definition is semantics? Anyway, thanks for the conversation. Ado523 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)