User talk:Toasted 123

June 2021
Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, TimeSplitters, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rdp060707&#124;1 Year of Service to the Encyclopedia 08:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

edit reason
Hi there, the tweets cited weren't from the auditor's they are from the Auditor's liason; former state Senator (Ken Bennett)

You can't cite left wing tabloids only as evidence that an investigation has found nothing (insinuating it has also ended). This is very biased, and isn't what wikipedia is supposed to be.

It should be impartial, and factual. The investigation is ongoing, and citations should either be from both sides, or from original sources. If a tweet from the liaison to the audit isn't impartial, the reports from CNN can't be used as citations either. Surely? Toasted 123 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are making an error common to many new editors, including when I first got here. We rely on reliable secondary sources, which includes CNN, regardless of your perception of it as a left-wing tabloid, and your inclusion of tweets from the "Official Account of the Senate Liaison for the Maricopa County 2020 Forensic Election Audit" is clearly a primary source from the people running the audit and thus is most certainly not a reliable source. The Republican-controlled Senate originated the audit and you are quoting their spokesman. You'd be fine if you cited a reliable secondary source quoting him, but not his tweets. Also, I did not threaten you with a block, but rather warned you that your approach based on flawed knowledge of how things work here placed you at risk of being blocked. You're welcome. soibangla (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Information should be presented from both sides (i.e Fox News and CNN, or BBC & GB News) after the one's doing the audit have had their claim presented. This would be a healthy debate for and against whatever the auditor's claim, same for any article pertaining to any political bias. Instead they're given no voice, and there's only one side to the debate of the audits validity (against) this is woefully biased.

I just looked at the CNN & Fox News wiki's to compare them for bias. No surprise, one has controversies etc in the main article body and sub headings, one has none of it's recent controversies mentioned anywhere, not even about a 50% ratings slump post inauguration, and was locked.

The sad thing is, I'm certain if I edited the outdated CNN article and added any controversies to bring it up to date (with a 3rd party citation) and to make it no different to the opposing news outlet, it'd be quickly deleted with any excuse. Toasted 123 (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you use reliable secondary sources and accurately present what they say, you'll be fine. Many new editors stray from this fundamental rule, have their content removed and conclude "it's just not fair." What are CNN's recent controversies? A 50% ratings slump post inauguration isn't a "controversy." Fox News has had numerous controversies for 20+ years, in large measure because it was specifically created by a former Republican messaging consultant to present a political viewpoint, whereas CNN was not. I've lost count of how many times a Fox News host has loudly declared that something about someone they don't like is "the biggest scandal in American history" only to see it fizzle to nothing, then they move on to the next "biggest scandal in American history" and their viewers don't seem to notice or care. CNN does not do this, and that's why its article doesn't contain controversies whereas the Fox News article does. Fox News makes stuff up, and this tends to explain why WP:RSP has determined that it is a dubious source for political news. soibangla (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing disputes
I saw that you're in the middle of an editing dispute on teh 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit page. I honestly don't care one way or the other, but I don't like seeing a good faith editor possibly end up blocked because they don't understand some of the Wikipedia processes. One that catches more new editors than it should is around editing disputes, commonly called edit-warring. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where the goal is to find a concensus among editors, but that takes discussion. The ideal editing process on Wikipedia is called WP:BRD - a change is Boldly made, but if it's Reverted, it's time to Discuss on the article talk page. Generally, the person making the original change is the one who should start the discussion. Calmly discuss the issues, using good sources and always assume the other person wants a good article just as much as you, but sometimes there will be differences. The dispute resolution page gives some ideas for next steps, but starting with the talk page discussion is always a good first step.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)