User talk:Suresa108

Welcome
 Hello, Suresa108, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Suresa108, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do some reading before trying to edit controversial articles.
Your edits at talk:Fake News Awards have a lot of issues with formatting, threading, and your basic understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I strongly recommend that you take a break from the article until you come up to speed. Most of us start by making small edits to less controversial articles and participate in talk page discussions to help improve content before moving on to highly-controversial articles. If you are here to help us build an encyclopedia, then you will find many opportunities to improve content on any of our articles. I'm happy to answer questions about how Wikipedia works, but I recommend you start by reading some of the links in the Welcome message above.- MrX 🖋 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In particular, Suresa108, I think is referring to becoming familiar with Talk page guidelines (see also Technical and format standards), as well as the core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability with reliable sources, and no original research (see also the Five pillars of Wikipedia). The links on your welcome message above are helpful, and you might see The Wikipedia Adventure for an editing tutorial. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do heed the advice given by and, as Wikipedia is not a forum. This is getting quite disruptive .  D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 08:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DarthBotto:

So far, I've suggested a minor edit of one single sentence, along with 3 published conservative news references to support it, to make the Fake News Awards article balanced, neutral, and politically unbiased. This can't reasonably be considered then "disruptive anarchy". Therefore, the suggestion that I leave the discussion, to work on a different Wikipedia article to gain experience, because my requests are not minor edits seems disingenuous.

Your suggestions appear to be merely attempts at censorship and diversion, to solely maintain the current Liberal bias to the Fake News Awards article intact. Which of the published references I've provided to back up my suggestions to changes, which I bet you've never actually opened or read, did you disagree with? Further, you are mistaken, because offering a balanced, neutral presentation, of the Fake News Awards article, which explains both sides of the political spectrum, and how it reacted to this news event, allowing references to published conservative media, as I was requested, is not in fact anarchy.

According to Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources":

"Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

What the Fake News Awards page has done however, is solely permit "contentious questionable sources about living persons (the President)", and references to Liberal media, which attacked and ridiculed President Trump, from the Liberal media itself, on the grounds of their demands of Freedom of the Press, while at the same time blocked all references from Conservative media, denying it the same freedoms, by falsely claiming they're not "reliable (published) sources", which they in fact are. Next it was claimed that the conservative sources had no following, when in fact they have a larger current popular following than Liberal media, according to references I provided. This is likely due to personal political bias, on the part of the authors, to solely promote the Liberal view to the article, which is not following the Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality. Instead it's an attempt at censorship and error by omission.

It appears you're defining "disruption" as any contradiction to the Liberal opinions, expressed on the Fake News Awards Talk page, with editors who are also using it as their own personal forum, in an attempt to deny those same suggestions for changes, coming from a conservative side, as not being "neutral", in order to continue censorship.

In the coming days, I will going through my various comments on the Talk page, consolidating and removing redundancies and information that doesn't relate to the article itself, along with providing published sources to my various claims and suggestions, from conservative media. I will also be making more suggestions for changes to the article, which I believe will provide a more balanced view of the Fake News Awards news event, to all forms of readers who may view it on Wikipedia, to make it truly neutral unbiased presentation. I will also study the guidelines for proper formatting as suggested.

Suresa108 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice that you've already deleted everything I wrote for me. Censorship wins again. Good thing I have copies.

Suresa108 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Both are valid block reasons. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've visited WP:NOTHERE as suggested, and read the description, and it doesn't say one set of editors, who are Liberal leaning, may write inflammatory comments, and conservative leaning commentators must be censored and blocked. This seems like a personal political bias being applied. My confusion is why Volunteer Marek, and others, may write such inflammatory things "just because Trump and some crazies" and "all that you've written is garbage", and they're approved as "neutral" comments, but conservative suggestions are blocked and deleted, using the label WP:NOTHERE? It seems there's double standard being applied where one set of editors may write inflammatory and politically motived statements, and others requesting balance and neutrality are blocked? It seems as if their is a Liberal bias that's tolerated, as the standard, and all others are removed and censored? How can this possibly be considered neutral or valid? I've been warned above, but I don't understand why the warning is being interpreted in this way? Suresa108 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are here to help us build an encyclopedia, then you will find many wonderful opportunities to improve content on any of our articles.  However, if you believe that Infowars, Breitbart, Zerohedge, Facebook, Reddit, and Russia Today are reliable sources, then you should probably not be editing on Wikipedia.  If you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS then you're in the wrong place. If you view Wikipedia's policies as censorship then you're in the wrong place. If you think your opinion is more important than  experienced editors, then I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place.- MrX 🖋 13:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am here specifically to help improve the quality of the 'Fake News Awards' article, at this time, since I am new to Wikipedia, to gain experience at editing, and then will move on to other topics I am interested in as well. The Fake News Awards article is solely promoting a pro-left wing media bias and side of the story, painting the Liberal media as unfair victims, and is blocking conservative media content.  What you are presenting is not historically accurate and is not neutral.  63 million American voters selected Donald Trump as President, along with the Electoral College.  You are not representing their side of the Fake News Awards experience, by solely reporting Liberal mainstream media's view, who are constantly behaving as enemies of the President, in the name of freedom of the press, as your only sources.  The repeated concept that I must go edit some other Wikipedia article, is simply your politically biased attempt at censorship.


 * My suggestion to improve the quality of this article, is to allow one minor edit of 1 single sentence, and allow 3 conservative media references, who also have an equal claim to freedom of the press, to support this sentence, which celebrated the temporary GOP site crash, when the Fake News Awards were first announced, due to extreme popularity and not failure, as Liberal media stated, so as to present the article from a neutral non-politically biased view. It doesn't seem unreasonable, unless you're stating that Liberal political bias is how Wikipedia defines "neutral"?  Which points in the articles, from Zerohedge, Infowars, and RT, which I presented as sources, that you never opened and read, did you disagree with?


 * According to Wikipedia statistics, Infowars enjoys a monthly viewership of 20 million visitors. Russia Today was just nominated for international media awards, along with 9 awards and 2 golds at a New York international media event in 2017.  It was nominated in 17 categories .  CNN viewership, on the other hand, has declined to below 'Yogi Bear' cartoon reruns .  Which then is the most reliable media source, to be named in this article?

References:

1. https://www.rt.com/news/386256-new-york-festivals-rt-awarded/

2. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-06/cnns-rating-collapse-prime-time-shows-draw-less-viewers-re-runs-yogi-bear

Suresa108 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't distinguish sources by their supposed political leanings. We only care that they have a reputation for fact checking, correcting errors, and editorial oversight. We use mainstream sources, although not exclusively, because they are widely regarded a reliable. We routinely use conservative-leaning sources like Fox News, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and so on. I recommend that you don't accuse other users of things like "politically biased attempt at censorship" as that is frowned upon here.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What I have observed is alternative conservative media does fact checking, corrects errors, and maintains editorial oversight. When they make mistakes, and even admit they're wrong, they're still barred from being cited on Wikipedia, due to what appears to be a personal unwritten political editorial bias, which varies one editor to the next, to possibly solely promote a Liberal agenda, as it's primary importance, with historical accuracy being only secondary.  When conservative media errs they're barred, and when mainstream media errs, it's all forgiven. This double standard is very the reason for the Fake News Awards.  This bias isn't found in the reading material suggested for new members, that I've discovered, so I wonder where one can find it, where unwritten rules are clearly explained - such as you don't welcome conservative input, it's purposely barred, and if one isn't willing to cooperate to promote the Liberal agenda, their account will be suspended?


 * I've discovered Fact Checking sites loyal to the Liberal agenda, such as Snopes, also make errors in their fact checking, where they brand a conservative media story as "False", but imbedded in their own arguments they actually prove it's "True" and visa versa, using substitution of terms and omission of details as a ploy to fool readers. It's been great fun to discover these types of errors, and then use their own arguments against them. Suresa108 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References:

Zerohedge claims President Obama doesn't build bridges, he also builds a border wall, to block immigration into southern Mexico, and questions the double standard?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-14/mexico-builds-wall-and-guess-who-paid-it

Snopes fact checks Zerohedge article, claiming it is "False". What's true however, is that President Obama did initially send $15 million and later an additional planned $75 million in US taxpayer funds to Mexico, along with equipment and materials, to aid the Mexican government, in blocking immigration into Mexico, across its southern border with Guatemala, as Zerohedge claimed, and the only part of the article that's actually false is the word "wall", which Snopes changes to "barrier", and that President Obama didn't directly send the money, and instead his State Department did.

https://www.snopes.com/mexico-75-million-border-wall/


 * If you still think that any of those sources are reliable even after several editors have told you that they are not deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purpose, you are welcome to inquire at WP:RSN where more editors will tell you the same thing. If, after that, you still continue to promote those sources on article talk pages, you're likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Good luck.- MrX 🖋 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not what was originally suggested and caused confusion on my part as a new member. I was told conservative references might possibly be considered for addition to the Fake News Awards article as long as they are "reliable sources", however after searching through Wikipedia fine print, this means they must be mainstream media "reliable sources".  Only certain conservative media are labeled as reliable sources, which also conveniently attack President Trump and support the Liberal agenda.  Since all of mainstream media consistently and universally opposes President Trump, speaking as the opposition Democratic Party, as one unified voice, including so-called conservative sites mentioned, like the WSJ, it becomes a de facto and clever form of political censorship, to solely promote a Liberal bias on Wikipedia.  My suggestion then is to make these terms clear, put them in writing, and less subject to personal interpretation by editors and new members. Suresa108 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's food for thought. You may want to consider contributing on a similar wiki encyclopedia that seems like it would more receptive of your ideas about sources and neutral point of view: Fake News on Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia🇺🇸. Cheers.- MrX 🖋 20:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This has already been previously suggesting in "Talk". I checked, but Conservapedia doesn't have a Fake News Awards page.  It's already been suggested that I leave, rather than figuring out a way to communicate with each other, and get along with each other, in order, as I suspect to preserve the main intent - to protect the Liberal bias, rather than be historically accurate.  I am willing to follow Wikipedia's rules, and fit in rather than simply be viewed as an annoying anarchist, or to have my account suspended as threatened, and be a contributing member.  I am interesting in reading more about the specific rules, and will study more, as has been previously suggested.  Suresa108 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)