User talk:Isi96

This is Isi96's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 31 days

Discretionary sanctions alerts

Your removal of ADL citations at Europa: The Last Battle, seems inappropriate

RSNP:"There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S.". Doug Weller talk 08:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Got it, thanks. Isi96 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logically

Why have you changed the reference I posted to Logically being sold in an administration deal? The Times link you've changed it to is behind a paywall and so not readable by most people.

Also, why did you remove the newly added Criticism section? It's common practice on Wikipedia to include criticisms of media sites etc. Factcheckers are not immune from criticsm. 31.94.30.57 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times link you've changed it to is behind a paywall and so not readable by most people. See WP:PAYWALL. I've added an archive link for access.

It's common practice on Wikipedia to include criticisms of media sites etc. Sure, but they don't have content that's sourced only to random YouTube channels. Isi96 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archived Times article is still blocked. This typically happens with many paywalled sites even on archive.org. It would make sense to reinstate the source I added that you undid.

Regarding the Criticisms section you deleted, I watched some of the Ockhams Shaver videos and the critiques of certain Logically factchecks are legitimate. Surely that is the important point? 31.94.30.57 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@31.94.30.57 No, because the videos are still self-published. Isi96 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I've looked into this further and it seems that Wikipedia doesn't accept self-published sources. It's ironic that they would accept Logically as a source even though all their fact checks are not necessarily reliable. Logically's employees may be no more qualified to analyse something than a "random" YouTuber, self-published author etc. 31.94.29.37 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may interest you

[1]. Best place I could think of atm, Wikipedia coverage of American politics doesn't quite fit, not yet anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]