User talk:Mike03car

Thank you

Hi Mike03car! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I’m inviting you to join other people who edit conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where group members can ask questions and meet new colleagues. You'll also discover DYK: the easiest and funnest way to get your article on the Main Page. I hope to see you there! – Lionel^(talk) 05:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and absolutely. How about some tips to combat the biased editing?Mike03car (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Biased editing? On Wikipedia? To my knowledge all 136,946 editors on Wikipedia follow WP:NPOV to the letter. If you've experienced biased editing give me a link and I'll look into it. – Lionel^(talk) 07:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lionel This is my case and point - Jorm puts his personal opinion about his own definition of an assault weapon even though it is verifiably incorrect as another user provided and the nationally established experts on firearms explain. Jorm also lets his own feelings about one said expert interfere with the facts. I copied the talk below from the article for easy access. I'll unclutter my talk page later after this has been addresed.

 "I absolutely prefer "assault weapon".--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Jorm, you restored a reference to "assault rifle" to the article earlier today. I would suggest stripping "assault rifle" from the article since that is a well defined term and the guns involved aren't assault rifles. Springee (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Springee, doing this, which is the verifiably correct terminology, does not fit the narrative of the editors with authority to promote their agenda.Mike03car (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing "assault" or "military style" or "assault style" or "weapons of war" about the AR-15 or other semi-automatic weapons such as used in Parkland and Las Vegas. ALL of those references should be STRICKEN from the page, or at least stated as being incorrect assumptions. Listen to the Nuge: [1] Mike03car (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, the ramblings of a draft dodger are not a reliable source.--Jorm (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Another example of personal bias interjected over factual expertise and taking away from Wiki claims of neutrality. I served 24 years in the United States Air Force after my Dad's 21 in same, but I don't let Ted's probably getting out of being selected get in the way of what are the straight-forward and easy to understand facts. Did you even listen to it? If so, that was very quick listening (unless you heard the entire segment earlier during the past 9 days).Mike03car (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)"

End of quote from article's talk. Mike03car (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You have to remember the first rule of Wikipedia: you do not talk about bias at Wikipedia lol. Second rule: everything is editorial judgment. Third rule: all editorial issues are determined by majority voting. Forth rule: the exception to the third rule is when an admin steps in to override the majority to enforce the systemic bias. This is called consensus. Fifth rule: if you can wear down and outlast the other editors without getting topic-banned you win. – Lionel^(talk) 02:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I wasn't the first, as you can see at the top of my still fairly new talk page, to write about points of view and personal opinions. The others with override and warning authority accused me of interjecting with what they didn't agree upon, but left other points of view and opinions on the topics. I say warning authority because they quoted some kind of citations and rules to prevent my future participation. Yet when another person. Jorm, is even more blatant, it can't be called out? I supposed I should just remove the wording that they added, which has been verifiably resolved but they still added the term, instead of attempting civil dialogue with a person such as "Jorm".

In another case, two far-left Soros-funded media outlets and groups are permitted to be sources, but a fringe-right outlet gets told as not reliable by a person of overriding and warning authority, who also removes all information from it that I entered. How's that neutral and fair?Mike03car (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! 24 years, that's awesome! Looking at 2018 NRA, it appears as if there is a consensus for "assault weapon." However all of the variants of assault weapon still appear in the article--noone has implemented the consensus. Is your preferred term "semi-automatic weapon?"– Lionel^(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Glancing over your talk page it appears that editors have been negligent in following WP:BITE and if I had seen this earlier I would've issued warnings. One of them should have posted a greeting on your page. Note that one of the visitors to your page, User:Wasabi,the,one has been blocked indefinitely for socking. Sockpuppets aren't generally known for their civility lmao.– Lionel^(talk) 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Your name is a redlink. If an editor has a redlink sometimes editors assume that the user is just doing drive-bys or is a vandal. I would create a userpage so that editors know you're here for the long haul. – Lionel^(talk) 13:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC) OMG! The Boycott got merged into The Angle! Now the real show begins lmao. It's gonna be a war between inclusionists screaming WP:DUE and exclusionists screaming WP:UNDUE. I think I'll put that on my watchlist lol. – Lionel^(talk) 13:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Do you have a link to the Soros-funded sources thing? On another topic, the list of advertisers is completely WP:UNDUE. You know, the consensus on talk is to Delete. I wonder why none of the editors have deleted the list. – Lionel^(talk) 14:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I am figuring this out as I go when it comes to editing and conversing on the article pages and talk pages. I am familiar with .html and used to do web-based graphics and intel course development as a contractor after USAF, so it didn't take me long to get comfortable with getting involved. But it's hard to my eyes to look often at the white background of the browser on any Wiki page, despite my display's light filtering adjusted to ease the radiancy.Mike03car (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I kinda wondered why my username was showing up in RedLink and just thought that perhaps everyone's own username showed up that way for their own selves. As recommended, I'll get around to creating a user page fairly soon. Although I created/registered my Wiki account years ago, it wasn't until the Ingrahm Angle issue two weeks ago that I edited more than a high sccool principal name.Mike03car (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You should delete the above comment because (1) little tidbits like that can be used to identify you in real life (2) if you piss someone off they might go delete chunks out of your alma mater. – Lionel^(talk) 06:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, there is no special "warning authority." Anyone can issue warnings, if there are grounds. Even you! Here they are WP:WARNING. You can post practice warnings here User_talk:Sandbox. If you really get a kick out of warning people then you can install a tool called Twinkle which automates warning people lmao WP:TWINKLE. If you volunteer at vandalism you can give our warnings day and night hahaah WP:CVU. – Lionel^(talk) 06:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters and Think Progress are among the dozens of Soros-funded organizations. yet often used as sourcing on Wikipedia. Media Bias Fact Check does not have lists for "far left" or "far right". They have lists for "left, left-center, center, right-center, and right". Media Matters and Think Progress are both on the "left" list while Breitbart (which got denied by a "badged" editor of authority), is on the "right" list. Neither of the three are listed as "conspiracy" or "questionable sources". Mike03car (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)