User talk:Feather943
Hello, I'm BusterD. I noticed that you removed topically relevant content from Fuck me. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Marxist cultural analysis, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Who determines what consensus is and what disruptive editing is? Is it whoever the majority's opinion is on Wikipedia determines that standard? Feather943 (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, in this case it's a user who adds their own opinions in articles without reliable sources with the intent of "exposing" some bias on Wikipedia or to promote a particular viewpoint. See WP:POINT, WP:RGW, and WP:NOTHERE.
- Shocked you've not yet been blocked tbh EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is from Wikipedia's dispute resolution page:
- "Follow the normal protocol
- [
- edit
- ]
- When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- So, would it be considered as 'content dispute' if I include alternate and complementary academic sources that contends that cultural marxism should be labeled largely as a conspiracy theory, while not deleting or altering the claim that cultural marxism is largely referring to a conspiracy theory? Feather943 (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- If including alternative sources contending the Left's claim that Cultural Marxism should be coined as 'far-right conspiracy theory', then it is de-facto censorship and only allowing a one-sided view-point, despite serious efforts to establish an academic contend. This violates the spirit of Academic Liberty, and the non-censoring principle of Wikipedia. Feather943 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you have legit reliable sources, post them on the talk page. Otherwise it looks like you're just here to try to prove a point EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Shocked you've not yet been blocked tbh", not very fitting for the Left's Diversity and Openness narrative, eh? Not sure if you treat your students this way.
- Okay, I will post them on the talk page first. Feather943 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:POINT, WP:RGW, and WP:NOTHERE
- I see now why it's considered as disruptive editing. Fair enough. Feather943 (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you have legit reliable sources, post them on the talk page. Otherwise it looks like you're just here to try to prove a point EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)