User talk:107.10.129.126: Difference between revisions
→Salon reliability: Reply |
→Salon reliability: Reply |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::Nice job changing the goalposts. |
::::Nice job changing the goalposts. |
||
::::So is it deprecated or not? [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 07:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
::::So is it deprecated or not? [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 07:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::It was deprecated, it is currently not a reliable source. Anyone unfortunate enough to have ever clicked on a salon article knows that it is a leftist propaganda machine akin to the daily beast, daily kos, young turks, vox, vice, mic, slate, huffpo, etc. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0|2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0]] ([[User talk:2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0|talk]]) 17:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:46, 15 February 2024
Alprazolam
Calling another user a "rogue", as you did in the edit summary, is definitely not the best way to approach people and can be seen as a personal attack. Having said that, I agree with you complaints and admit I wrongly rollbacked your edit. My attention was attracted by the removal of sourced content but as you pointed out, that was not what the source stated, so I apologise for my mistake. Happy editing. --DoebLoggs (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- You owned up to a mistake, that takes courage and maturity. Very good. 107.10.129.126 (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
Got to go after these propagandists and their leftist bullshit.
Anonymous is the only way. 200.88.232.116 (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Salon reliability
Salon is not deprecated, per the Perennial sources list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- direct quote: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." Saying it isn't deprecated is grossly misleading. Regardless, it is not a reliable source according to the very list to which you refer. Nice try though. 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're purposely misreading it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote. There is no misreading of a direct word for word quote. You're purposely pretending not deprecated = reliable when it doesn't. Salon is not a reliable source according to wikipedia, thus it is discouraged from being used as a source. 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nice job changing the goalposts.
- So is it deprecated or not? David O. Johnson (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- It was deprecated, it is currently not a reliable source. Anyone unfortunate enough to have ever clicked on a salon article knows that it is a leftist propaganda machine akin to the daily beast, daily kos, young turks, vox, vice, mic, slate, huffpo, etc. 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote. There is no misreading of a direct word for word quote. You're purposely pretending not deprecated = reliable when it doesn't. Salon is not a reliable source according to wikipedia, thus it is discouraged from being used as a source. 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're purposely misreading it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)