User talk:Nascence411

Discretionary sanctions alert - COVID
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your feedback. Would you mind replying with "who I have attacked" and what exactly I said that was an "attack?" Many thanks - also please stop censuring my comments on the "talk page." Nascence411 (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "wikilords" (by which I assume you are referring to more experienced editors) whom you accuse of being dictatorial. You would also do well to read-up on our policies on reliable sources, here. Your statements on "biased sources" and your interest in disputing scientists also suggests you should read up on what is actually meant by "neutral point of view". I also don't know where exactly you live, but from what I can see, the WaPo isn't exactly the "extremely biased" source you seem to describe. That would be something like, assuming you're from the US, Mother Jones, or Fox News. You should see WP:RSP for more details and what previous discussions have lead to, instead of having to relitigate this over and over again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  01:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for messaging me. Actually, I described the act of censorship as dictatorial. I don't believe using the word "wikilords" constitutes any kind of defamatory attack, especially as described in wikipedia's terms, and especially in light of how many of my comments have been deleted or hidden. Additionally, when considering the hypocrisy of "edit wars" which you also seem to be engaging in, the term aptly characterizes the extreme censuring that seems to occur regularly on the "talk page." You have told me now three times to read what constitutes a "reliable source" and I am afraid to say that this comes across as rude and condescending. If you are describing the Washington Post as reliable, suffice it to say the WP is ubiquitously considered partisan here in the States. Cheers. Nascence411 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is because you were (and still appear to be) using the talk page to air grievances about other editors and to argue politics - the fact is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the articles, not forums for free speech. As for bias, yes, Wikipedia is very thoroughly and utterly mainstream. That this happens to not be convenient to one political party in one country is none of our concern (if it was, that would be further evidence of systematic bias - the same way your country could be said to be showing signs of systemic racism. Neither are good things) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks again for messaging me. I don't see any comments of mine on the talk page that constitute a personal grievance of any individual editor, rather I am critical of particular editor's sources. This does not constitute a personal attack as you have indicated above, nor does it constitute a political argument or agenda. Some of your additional comments are quite perplexing to me: I am not critiquing Wikipedia, and your comments about systemic racism or political affiliation suggest that you are indeed "politically charged" so to speak. "Is none of our concern:" who is "our?" Do you speak for someone other than yourself? best, Nascence411 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Our" = Wikipedia's community. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)