User talk:Printice111

Yes, Wikipedia is not neutral

At least the way you seem to mean it. We are against Creationism, Nazism, conspiracy theories, etc. However we do rely on sources considered by the community to be reliable and articles should follow our WP:Neutral point of view policy "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not neutral. I'd be interested in seeing the source you mention, but even with that, further edits like your previous ones are likely to end up with you being blocked or topic banned. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently not able to access my laptop so I will send you the source not today, but probably tomorrow. None of the edits I made are promoting any of what you said. The bias I speak of is not about being anti-racism or anti-discriminatory, which is totally fine and also necessary. But wikipedia has a left-wing bias, which is blatantly obvious if you analyse the way people and organisations are described based on what their political views are. This isn't a debate forum anyway, so I am not going to go further. And English is not my first language, so I might be misinterpreting this, but are you calling me a Nazi? Printice111 (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not calling you a Nazi. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I accidently cleared the entire talk page, I hope you could see all my replies Printice111 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it is quite odd that the beginning of every biography page has no sources Printice111 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not odd, sources need to be in the body of the article, see WP:LEAD. In any case, many biographies do have sources in thr lead Doug Weller talk 15:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you - I will send you the source I still don't have access to the system Printice111 (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just send me my edit history of that article again so that I can find that source Printice111 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the edit history of the article. I presume you mean you can source the mainly left bit. But that's minor.

What is major and can get you blocked is this edit[1] where you changed "Trump made unproven claims of widespread electoral fraud," to"Trump made claims of widespread electoral fraud, substantiated by the Hunter Biden laptop controversy". The article, with sources, makes it clear that his claims lacked evidence and were unproven. The laptop thing isn't even in the article and was thus unsourced, just your opinion. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-change-personal-taxes#:~:text=The%20Tax%20Cut%20and%20Jobs,inflation%20index%20(see%20below). For the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-10-14/n-y-post-says-it-obtained-hunter-biden-emails-on-ukraine-video For the Hunter Biden Laptop controversy - but I should change "substantiated" to "he substantiated" if that clears the accuracy test.

And it's fair to say that a key policy of the first Trump administration was also characterised by a focus on re-vitalising American industries and businesses. Printice111 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the taxpolicy thing is about. As to the New York Post it is not considered reliable for politics, and read the lead of Hunter Biden laptop controversy. But in a sense that doesn't matter, your edits contradicted the sources in the article. And I'd argue that First presidency of Donald Trump can't be interpreted your way.

Again, repeat those edits and you might end up at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The context I added to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is from that source.

If you find the New York Post to be "unreliable" (how convenient, why don't you give me the list of "reliable" sources as deemed by the organisation), maybe we can rephrase it based on the website of the US judiciary: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-information-shows-cia-contractors-colluded-biden-campaign-discredit-hunter

"Your edits contradicted the sources in the article" - what do you mean by this Printice111 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd argue that First Presidency of Trump can't be interpreted your way" - and what is that based on besides opinion Printice111 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Printice111, if you don't believe what an experienced user like Doug Weller tells you, you can check sources that have been discussed by the community against this list. You'll find the New York Post here. If you make a habit of checking this list before using a source, it'll hopefully save you not only from using sources deemed by the community to be unreliable, but also from ignorant sneers such as the one above ("how convenient"). And you could have a read of Wikipedia:Assume good faith while you're about it.

As for Doug Weller's "your edits contradicted the sources in the article", what can I say — you'll just have to check out those sources in the article that address the matters that you edited.

You have offered your opinion about Trump's first presidency above, as "it's fair to say that a key policy of the first Trump administration was also characterised by a focus on re-vitalising American industries and businesses". That is your opinion. Doug Weller has replied the "I'd argue that First presidency of Donald Trump can't be interpreted your way" — that's not just based on his opinion, but on our article First presidency of Donald Trump. For you to come back with a claim that First presidency of Donald Trump, a painstakingly sourced article, is also merely 'based on opinion' approaches sealioning. I'll just add from myself, again, that any more tendentious editing from you is likely to lead to either a block or a topic ban from American politics, per my warning here (which you first replied to and then blanked, just as I was about to post a longish explanation, now lost, of what in that edit needed sources; I'm afraid I'm not up for rewriting it). Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, it is safer in contemporary society to not trust anyone, especially on the internet, but I appreciate you sending me the comprehensive list of approved sources in Wikipedia - trust all liberal media, got it - including MSNBC! I apologise to Doug Weller for the blatantly offensive language ("how convenient"). Assume good faith - a very utopian ideal, but all is perfect in Wikipedia after all. Differing views are indeed tolerated, how nice!

The edit question has been answered, I am waiting for approval.

If you would like for me to find the source for the Trump Administration's stated goals - I can find that for you. I didn't say they re-vitalised businesses, which you would certainly disagree with, but I said they stated it as an agenda, but I guess I didn't make that very clear, my bad. And I am confused - it says that sealioning involves constantly asking a person for evidence, but isn't that what the two of you are doing? I don't really think I asked for evidence anywhere, aside from the list of approved sources (which I was genuinely unaware of, thank you for providing me with that information).

The usage of the word tendentious is quite abstract and arbitrary. I could argue that many sentences within that article were partisan, but that comes from my bias, and your characterisation is also from a biased viewpoint. Everyone is biased by human nature, even if they claim they aren't. What determines bias? Bias requires a boundary. I really would appreciate knowing what that boundary is.

I'm not exactly an "advanced" editor, which is evident, so teach me more. Sealioning and saying that I am biased is also a violation of assuming good faith, is it not? Correct me if I'm wrong. What a rabbit hole of bureaucratic rules to uncover. I can't wait to learn from you.

Also, I accidently cleared all the user talk on my page after you first posted, which is why you can't see it now. I genuinely had no clue that that would happen. Printice111 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the edit question answered? Doug Weller talk 19:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Website of the US Judiciary Printice111 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A report by a Republican led committee is both a primary source and unreliable for facts. But hey, if you don't believe me, go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me if possible on April 20th, 2025 as I have exams now Printice111 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember me? Printice111 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a complete u-turn in views Printice111 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. By the way, do you want the text you removed from your user page hidden from other editors? Doug Weller talk 10:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rework my user page some other day - also is there any way to get rid of that edit history? I genuinely did not know what "sand monkey" meant and I realise it is very offensive; I also no longer defend the opinions I had in the past, and I'm sorry for the hostilities and I genuinely despise how I responded before. Printice111 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only Admins can now see your edit summary Doug Weller talk 16:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Printice111 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSS Science and Technology University, Mysuru moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to JSS Science and Technology University, Mysuru. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Junbeesh (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I add more information it should be fine right Printice111 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]