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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Discretionary sanctions alerts

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles climate change COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Category:Holocaust-denying films has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

[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]

 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]