User talk:LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer

Welcome!
Hi LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm see User talk:LieCorrector78. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Hello, I'm Andethyst. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to WorldNetDaily—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Andethyst  (talk)  01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the only edit that I made was to change the mislabeling of the page from “far-left” and “fake news” to “conservative” and “news site”. Not only were these edits constructive, but they were accurate. It is not constructive to change the work of others that have made appropriate edits to libelous statements. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I meant to say that I changed it from “far right” to “conservative”, not “far left”. My mistake. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 10:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

All I did was attempt to remove an extremely opinionated label that was placed on a legitimate news website. The website in question has been mislabeled as “far right “ and “fake news”. These labels are libelous and inaccurate. When conducting searches for anything online, Wikipedia is often the first page that appears in a search. This means that it is imperative for Wikipedia to be non biased. If Wikipedia appears in the top of search results, then the sheer number of people that are going to access the page in question would indicate that Wikipedia has a responsibility to remain accurate and non biased. Allowing users to not only edit the wiki, but block other users from correcting their work is unacceptable. It is equally unacceptable for people with politically extremist views to create lies and destroy the work of others to further their fringe views.

Thanks you for your time.

Blocked
OK.. so per your comments above, you believe that writing a well-sourced description of WorldNetDaily, as a number of wikipedia editors spent time doing, is to "destroy the work of others", while blanking a large chunk of it as you did is "work"? And you "believe the only edit that [you] made was to change the mislabeling of the page from “far-right” and “fake news” to “conservative” and “news site”." That is a baseless belief, since you actually removed 12,938 bytes (see the page history). You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to help create an encyclopedia but, on the contrary, in fact, to destroy the work of others. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC).


 * I did not blank out that much on purpose; it was an accident, and since I didn’t tap on publish I don’t see how those changes were saved. The only changes I tapped save on were to the correction of mislabeling a news site as extremist and fake news. If I did more than that, I apologize. I am not here to undo the work of others; that is a baseless claim that you are making since the “work” that I tried to fix was libelous and slanderous to people that you obviously disagree with. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have only made one edit to WorldNetDaily, and this is it. That's what you tapped "Publish" for; there is no other saved edit by you. But I will accept that the big removal was an accident. If you will kindly undertake to use the "Preview" feature when you edit in the future, so that you can see what your edits actually achieve, I will unblock you, even though the short edit you intended to make flew in the face of the sources. Please respond below. And please make no further changes to articles without providing reliable sources for them. (And please be patient, as it's late in my timezone and I may not see your response until (my) tomorrow.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your response. I understand that you are in a different time zone. There is no rush to reply. I will admit that perhaps I lack the computer savvy to edit the wiki. I also want to clarify that I had attempted to create an account but was told that the first screen name I had chosen was already taken. Somehow that account was created anyway in spite of receiving the message that the name was already taken. That account was a mistake. I don’t care if I am able to edit or not; it is clear to me that any edits I make will be changed back. I also want to point out that the page in question has several “sources” that are biased news organizations. All I was trying to do was fix the page to remove political bias. It is unacceptable to these pages to be written in such a way, and with unreliable sources such as the Washington Post. WaPo could very easily be deemed as fake news in the view of half of Americans. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by consensus, and consensus is that Washington Post is reliable. See WP:WAPO. So how is such a consensus formed? If you look at my WP:WAPO link, you will see 17 (!) links to discussions. It has been thoroughly discussed, with arguments and nuance. You can't remove content sourced to WaPo by declaring that it's unreliable, or that (in your opinion) half of all Americans think so. What you'd have to do is to work to change the consensus. Take a look at the 17 discussions to see how that's done. The list that WP:WAPO comes from, Reliable sources/Perennial sources, may be useful to you in general. (As, I think, may the article Reliable sources that I linked to above.) So, do you undertake to use Preview going forward, or not? Please respond below. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC).

I have read through the list of reliable sources and some of the discussions that occurred among contributors in deciding the validity of such sources. I see minor attempts at objectivity, but it seems they have failed. I don’t have the time to read through it in its entirety, but from what I have read the consensus seems to favor leftist news sites, which in turn points to the fact that contributors are overwhelmingly left-leaning. I understand and accept how media such as Newsmax are not considered sources because it is mostly opinion, but a repugnant site like Mother Jones is allowed (although it is noted that they are biased, and statements need to be attributed, somehow they are still on the list).

I want to draw your attention back to the WND page for a moment. A number of references on that page casually label conservative news sites as alt-right or fake news, even when Wikipedia has rightfully labeled them as conservative. These references are extremely opinionated. I know this because the stories found on the sites mislabeled as alt-right are no different than the stories found on other conservative sites, ones that have been agreed upon as news and not fake.

The WND page also contains one of the most repulsive things I have seen on Wikipedia to date. There is a paragraph on the page located under the content section that states: “WND’s political lean has been described as alt-right”; the reference cited is an opinion piece entitled: Toward A Critical Theory of Communication as Renewal and Update of Marxist Humanism in the Age of Digital Capitalism.

A quote from the article: “This articles aim is to contribute to the renewal of Marxist theory”. The piece goes on to say: “Examples of alt-right websites are Breitbart, Drudge Report, InfoWars, Daily Caller, Daily Wire, and WorldNetDaily”.

This opinion piece has no objectivity and can’t possibly be considered a reliable source by anyone with an understanding of history. Furthermore, the source (Wiley Online Library) is not listed as reliable according to Wikipedia’s list of accepted sources. This leads me to question why this reference remains while Wikipedia takes such swift and decisive action to undo edits made by other contributors. My edits, for example, were undone in a matter of minutes. While I admit that I made mistakes that needed correction, the speed and intensity in which that edit was executed doesn’t seem to match the lack of concern regarding opinion pieces that push poisonous Marxist ideology.

With all of the above in consideration, I am no longer interested in being a contributor to Wikipedia. I see no reason to attempt any edits, as my work will immediately be changed and a block placed on my account by another contributor. I have no interest in an online community that gives their members the power to block others, especially when it’s clear that the motivations behind such actions will be political. The authority given to these contributors has not been earned, no matter how many edits they have made.

Thank you for your time. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What can I say other than almost everything you say above is nonsense and represent the views of people who live in a bubble isolated from the real world. And that being able to block vandals and those who are WP:NOTHERE is vital for any online community. Doug Weller  talk 06:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As I have explained, you've made one article edit, unless you're talking about edits made from a different account. (In which case you should read WP:SOCK.) All the rest of your edits are to this page, your own talkpage. See the list of your contributions here. So I don't know what your repeated complaints that "all" your edits have been undone refers to. Your one article edit, which removed massive amounts of text (accidentally or not, it did do that), has been reverted, yes. I would have thought you'd understand it needed to be reverted, rather than leaving the article crippled. Anyway. I offered to unblock you, on a condition you are not willing to meet. OK. I'm withdrawing that offer. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC).

Doug Weller: I didn’t ask for your opinion. Why are you chiming in?

Bishonen: The only edit I intended to make was to remove the unfair labels of that particular page. I intended to highlight and delete the tag only, but accidentally highlighted a large section of text and deleted. As soon as I realized this, I closed out my browser without saving it, thinking that it would revert back to the way it was. When I reopened my browser, I went back and it looked to the way it did before my mistake. So I proceeded to attempt to change the tag again, and hit publish thinking that’s all that would happen. Again, I’m not complaining that you changed it back, in fact I was crystal clear about that. I was only remarking how fast the edit was done while blatantly ignoring a different one. I am finished arguing with you about this. I can see that Wikipedia is deeply flawed, so goodbye. LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Bye. "Chime in" is what we do here. It's an essential part of Wikipedia culture. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC).

I see that I can’t delete my account. How wonderful! LiesAndPropagandaDestroyer (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)