User talk:Andreas Pankos

Welcome!
Hello, Andreas Pankos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Gab (social network) does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DoebLoggs (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you work for wikipedia. Why did you delete my additions to the page? They were accurate and factual. Andreas Pankos (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should better research a topic before editing it. Please don't lecture others, I've been on wikipedia since about 2005 please don't speak to me in a condescending manner "hope I decide to stay" Andreas Pankos (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What other accounts have you used?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven-What other accounts are you referring to? Andreas Pankos (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "I've been on wikipedia since about 2005", those ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, I'm Mvbaron. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. ''Hi, I undid one of your recent edits because it wasn't properly sourced to a reliable source - Wikipedia requires such attribution, because it is an encyclopedia. See also WP:V. Cheers'' Mvbaron (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The original article seems to support a myopic point of view such as your own. My addition adds further context to the discussion which is accurate and relevant Andreas Pankos (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also you need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I did read perhaps you should read and comprehend. It's easy to confuse the these two concepts when you don't have a semblance of an idea of what you are talking about. Andreas Pankos (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So far this account has edited this one topic (in fact article).Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, are you implying that since I have only recently registered to edit that have not donated to and/or have been a user of this platform prior to that registration? I registered when I saw the gross mischaracterization on this page using citations from liberal media news sources as though Manna from heaven. The malignant of those who share different views points is an attempt marginalize and deter others from having expressing themselves. Andreas Pankos (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that you only seem to have shown an interest in one very controversial topic (you might want to read wp:not this point). Also I will suggest you read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Although judging by the misinformation being proliferated here perhaps I should rethink donating to this site in the future. This article really encapsulates the difference in propaganda here as opposed abroad. In other countries propaganda is typically coordinated by the govt, in the US its "free market" propaganda controlled by the tech monologies to aid and abet political parties they seek to garner favor with Andreas Pankos (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * please do, and read WP:NOTDUB.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SlateeSteven heed your own advice Andreas Pankos (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And remember, you and people like you are why this country is declining Andreas Pankos (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I will now want you, continue to comment on users not content and cast aspersions and you will get reported to wp:ani. Heed this warning now, go to other articles and become familiar with how we do things before you get a block. But please do not threaten to withhold donations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SlaterSteven, I'm not planning on going anywhere. If edits require "citations" I will happily oblige. I will be editing the page once I have put together some links and the like. I didnt seek a conversation with nor your repetition of "please read" ad nauseum. If someone has something constructive to say like "try and make it like an encyclopedia entry" and "if you post make sure you have some tertiary or better literature to support your addition" I would consider that constructive criticism and not passive aggression. As for donations, when one donates they should take especial care to consider that they not enable or further an ideaology antithetical to their own. Suffice it to say I'm really horrified that this type of article appears on wikipedia. Andreas Pankos (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Andreas, having combed through the history of Gab (social network), I think it was you who added and other users seeking alternatives to social media platforms which disparately enforce arbitrary and capricious policies to the benefit of democrats as has become manifestly self-evident in the concerted effort by Google, Facebook, Twitter et al to suppress free speech and news or commentary to the exclusive benefit of the democratic party in this edit. That appears to be your own analysis or analysis that is not backed up by by reliable sources (a list can be found here). Please stop adding this analysis to that article, as it violates both Wikipedia's policy on original research and Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said above I will cite with my next edit. It's concomitantly my viewpoint and reality. Facebook censored and twitter censored and Gab downloads skyrocketed. Hence disaffectioned people seeking alternative. They claim that it's Nazis and alt right people is an unsubstantiated viewpoint. Did the news articles cite how they discerned the userbase demographics and how the criteria needed to arrive at that decision. Did they compare that vs facebook/twitter demographics? Was the person who wrote those articles biased? Please spare me your critiques Andreas Pankos (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Andreas, I think you may have misinterpreted what Wikipedia is for. It is not the role of us as editors to question how reliable sources came to their conclusions. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor is it a place to advance your point of view. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm also sure it's not a place where falsehoods are meant to be perpetrated and disseminated. Andreas Pankos (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct. That's why we use reliable sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And by the way everything in this article is in furtherance of the viewpoint of the people who wrote. Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. Andreas Pankos (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So riddle me this, if there is a divergence of a statement of fact among "reliable sources" wouldn't that mean that by definition that one of the reliable sources is spreading falsehoods? Andreas Pankos (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And consequentially the regurgitation of those statements here are the spreading of falsehoods Andreas Pankos (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If there is a divergence in reliable sources (let's say the Washington Post and New York Times were saying different things), then WP:WEIGHT is used. Editors do not say which reliable source is saying the truth; they just present it. As an example, we would write "The Washington Post says that a storm will happen on Tuesday, while the New York Times says the storm will happen on Friday." Sdrqaz (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note wp:v the source has to actually say it, not how you interpret it, nor not saying it, it has to actually say it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok so that's exactly what I will be updating in this article which I said above I will be doing exactly what you described and I already said as much above before you decided to profer me with your advice. Andreas Pankos (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)