CatchBias

July 2021

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Guo Wengui, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Wall Street Journal article was cited The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak. Is it not considered a reliable source? Thank you for your clarification. I found your conclusion quite arbitrary. CatchBias (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Guo Wengui. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Guo Wengui, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Guo Wengui was changed by CatchBias (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.872487 on 2021-07-07T20:21:34+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Guo Wengui. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly reminder. Do you mind sharing all the details of your investigation/research on PolitiFact that the source is neutral itself? When a different point of view was cited and presented, it was automatically labelled as against the neutral point of view and Vandalism and disruptive editing? Thank you in advance for the education I am looking forward to. CatchBias (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

PolitiFact is "generally reliable" at WP:RSPSOURCES. I recommend we centralize further discussion of this at Talk:Guo Wengui. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source? IF/Suppose PolitiFact is biased, how can Wiki stay neutral by allowing citing it but suppressing a different opion? Please note, I am not saying it is biased, I am asking you to share your conclusion based on your research on this source. I am not sure why presenting a logical, healthy and constructive discussion is considered not neutral. CatchBias (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)