User talk:BobiusPrime

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stone Mountain Village has been accepted
 Stone Mountain Village, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Nathan2055talk - contribs 07:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Stone_Mountain_Village help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

December 2018
Hi, BobiusPrime. I notice that you complain on Talk:Paul Joseph Watson of "administrators who vandalize the article with biased language". I think you must have missed or misread the policy on vandalism; it's at Vandalism, not at Vandalism on Wikipedia, which you link to. All policies and guidelines and other pages related to internal processes begin with "Wikipedia:" (with the colon); they are, as we say, "in Wikipedia space". Vandalism on Wikipedia isn't in Wikipedia space, it's in "article space", and is an informative article for our readers, not a ruleset for editors. You probably need to read the policy, to become familiar with what vandalism means here. Hope this helps.

I also wanted to ask who those administrators you mention are. I ask because Doug Weller is the only administrator to edit the article (or as you mistakenly call it, vandalize the article) in the past five months, as far as I can see. And Doug Weller only posted yesterday, so I'm not sure where you see "continual" thwarting of your efforts. See the article history. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC).


 * Thank you for reaching out. In the instance you cited, the administrator (who I did not intend to call out) insisted on adding inflammatory and subjective language to the article.  I have my own political and ideological beliefs, but I respect those of others by NOT using such language.  Allowing agenda-driven language diminishes the legitimacy of this site as a valid resource.  I suppose that is why I was never allowed to cite Wikipedia on college research papers.  A similar situation happened when I tried to edit the page for the Fraternal Order of Police.  The administrator removed the edits I did, which included the community outreach of the organization and removing items from the controversy section that lacked valid references.  I was told that sources did not have to be still available, which seems contrary to the rules I read for this site.  I left every item that (whether or not I agreed) was properly cited.  I am an active member of the organization, so I am familiar with its activities.  Almost every function my lodge has is community outreach, but the admin felt that I was "whiteashing" (I think he meant whitewashing) the article by adding it.  Any guidance or advice you have to offer is greatly appreciated. --BobiusPrime (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I should think you'd be prepared to answer a question like "who are the administrators who vandalize the article with biased language", which I asked. It's an accusation against several, unnamed, admins on your part, and seems to be mistaken — did you see I mentioned only one admin has edited the article in the past few months? If you can't justify your accusation, please consider withdrawing it, rather than changing the subject, here with me, to a different complaint about an unconnected article. I'm not so nimble as I used to be, and have trouble keeping up with sidesteps.


 * Since you ask for guidance and advice, my advice to you would be to be very careful about removing well-sourced content. If you don't think the sources used are reliable, please start a discussion on talk, and if that doesn't get any traction (=if nobody agrees with you), you can take the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard for more eyes. I'm referring both to this removal of text and this. We do have an article about Fake news, with a definition based on reliable sources. Perhaps you'd find it a helpful read. And finally, if you call out "Administrators" as vandals on that particular article, certainly you do call out Doug Weller, who is very easy to find in the page history. Being vague does not serve as much of a shield for personal attacks when it's quite transparent who you're referring to. I'll quote No personal attacks (a policy) for you: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bolding in the original. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC).


 * I appreciate your advice. My intent is to improve the information available on this site.  My efforts at improving certain articles seem to be well received, but others are apparently very contentious.  I can probably do a better job not letting my prosecutorial experience interfere with my editorial efforts.  I will try to stick to content-based objections. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

your problem is...
"Watson’s video was reportedly shared by the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders demonstrating the justification for revoking Acosta’s White House press credentials"

It was shared by Sanders, as a pretext for removing Acosta's credentials (which has to be read in the context of Trump's perennial hating on CNN and anyone else who holds him to account).

"Many media outlets claimed the video was “doctored” to make it appear Acosta’s contact with the intern was forceful"

In fact, this is what all reliable sources said.

You included a couple of decent sources, but completely misrepresented what they said. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your views of the incident are demonstrably wrong. It may be beneficial to read the entire articles before commenting on their contents.  I fully intend to continue editing out biased, untrue entries.  I admit I am new to editing Wikipedia.  However, my research and editing experience is real life and professional, not confined to an online hobby.  I will not be bullied, and petty condescension will not dissuade me.  Taunting me with phrases like "get over it" are intellectually void and only display a lack of counter-argument.  I have been a fan of Wikipedia for many years and have used it to search for source material when academic journals and books were scarce on a subject.  Honestly, I rarely had luck because editors here consider today's pathetic excuse for journalism as reliable and fact-filled, hence useless for academic pursuit.  Unfortunately this includes both liberal and conservative-based reporting. I hope to help change that.  As far as this article, the boasted "consensus" has not arrived to contradict me. Happy editing.  --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the sources you cite support my interpretation not yours. That's the end of ti, really. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not concur. --BobiusPrime (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter if you concur or not. If the WP:consensus of editors on the article's talk page concurs with Guy's position, that is what will remain in the article, unless and until you can find a consensus there to support your position.  (Yes, WP:Consensus can change.) Wikipedia operates on consensus, it's one of our core policies.  If a consensus agrees with Guy, and you edit against that consensus, it could be grounds for being blocked from editing.  As it is, it appears to me that you're treading very closely to WP:Tendentious editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , oddly enough, one other user did engage in that part of the discussion. He also felt that the use of the term "doctoring" was unwise.  I'm not sure 2 against 1 is necessarily a resounding consensus, but I'll work with what I have. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, one editor did say that "doctoring" seemed like the wrong word to them, howver Guy provided nmerous citations from reliable sources that used "doctoring". We are not at liberty to change what reliable sources say simply because we don't agree that they used the right word.  And you are correct, 2 to 1 doesn't make a consensus, per se, it's simply an indication that the consensus discussion is in its early stages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)