ΙΧΘΥΣ
Welcome
edit
|
Welcome!
edit
|
Request for Collaboration
editThe title of this section has been changed, along with the last post here being removed. My comments to this user were far from civil, and have accordingly, been struck. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, I'm sorry my previous post was rude. I appreciate your saying that you accept that not ALL of Wikipedia is biased, but I guess I just wasn't happy with all the things about us you put on your Userpage. If you feel that the point of view of an article is biased, you are most welcome to deal with it. Indeed, if something is wrong, I will help you deal with it. I've been with Wikipedia for quite some years now, and have a habit of fixing things up and correcting POV errors, raising problems, and so on. So if you would like to get some help, feel free to message me. I rescind my previous note to you, and thank you warmly for responding. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Intriguing statement
editHi there!
I was intrigued by a quote/statement on your user page -
- "Don't let the theory of evolution corrupt your mind. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is being used a liberal stronghold that distributes BIASED AND UNFOUNDED "proof" and "evidence" to millions of viewers. Evolution is a hoax and a religion. It is the religion of atheists and Darwinists who relentlessly attempt and fail to find an alternative to God. Unfortunately for them, there IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR GOD. God created the universe and humanity."
I thought your equation of belief in evolution with a religion was an interesting one, but it made me wonder. On the one hand, there are creationists who believe what they do because of what has been imparted to them by their religion. Their evidence is that presented to them by the wrtings of others (scripture, and their understanding of it), and their own belief that it is true. On the other hand, there are 'evolutionists' (is that a word?), who believe what they do because of what has been imparted to them and, likewise, their evidence is presented to them by the wrtings of others and their own belief that that is true. On that basis, and given the irreconcilability of the two beliefs, how can anyone do any more than say 'here is what I believe, and these are the reasons why'?
I ask because it seems to me that some people who do believe in creation theory discredit their argument by declaiming the 'biased and unfounded "proof" and "evidence"' of the opposing viewpoint, when their own beliefs are based (as the oppsing argument would see it) on nothing more susbstantial or evidential, personal faith aside.
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia biases
edit
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policywill be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
(the above is bot driven text which I never typed and doesn't clearly explain my view so this paragraph is written manually).... Adding 3 different directs for various combination of words of "Wikipedia" and "bias" is effectively attacking that "group(s) of people" who are the editors that edit Wikipedia. I'm going to tag for speedily delete the others if this first one is deleted. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sandra Bullock
editThere is a tenet here that says any categorization requires clear and concise reliable sourcing. If someone puts in an article that so-and-so is an atheist, that statement requires specific sourcing where the person says "I am an atheist". This holds true for the category of Christians. While Bullock may have said she has more faith in people representing a faith, she did not use the interview to affirm that she was a Christian. In fact, the article made it clear she stopped short of saying her faith (as a whole) had been restored. The content as you added it is questionable. Plus I cannot say that this source is accepted as a reliable source. Also please be aware that your "undo" removed edits that occurred after I removed the content. That is not kosher. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your signature
editPlease consider toning down your signature. It is very colorful and loud, and I find it highly distracting. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Another website that you might be interested in
editHi, after seeing some of your comments on the Intelligent design page I can tell that you're frustrated with the liberal agenda on Wikipedia. Remember that your not alone, and in fact a large group of concerned conservatives have put together a much more neutral alternative to this website. If you ever get sick of the obvious agenda of Wikipedia, don't hesitate to create an account at Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page. Shadoom (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work!
editI saw your comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design
It's a relief to see people like you with their brains still tacked on and fighting for what's fair in the public corners, like wikipedia. Can't you do an RFC on that page? --COMDER (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. If someone adds changes to your talk page, you'll get a Notice from Wikipedia... but if I changed my talk page to reply to your comments, would you get them? Probably not, right? Anyhow, I want to reply saying: would an RFC on the ID page do anything? COMDER (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Shouldn't the evolutionists get their own page to protect, and the intelligentists get their own page? Isn't there a Wiki policy to not edit an entry that goes against your biases? One thing I don't like about wikipedia is that there is no one person to complain to, and cheaters can proliferate with many IP addresses and pretend that they are many people when really they are a few. Wikipedia is only good for neutral articles.... but nonetheless, can't we cite a policy preventing biased editors from editing our page? Perhaps wikipedia should make a "protected" page based on partisans. The only parts of the ID page that evolutionists can edit is the criticisms...and vice versa. COMDER (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
download archives
editHi. Do you know how I can download all the archives of the ID discussion page?
Thanks. COMDER (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ica stones. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss on the talk page before putting the "not confirmed to be hoax" statement back. You are close to, if not over, the 3rr warning, and will be blocked if you continue. Ravensfire (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal attack
editPlease do not attack other editors as you did here. Not only is it a personal attack, it's a mischaracterization, at least of myself as I am none of those things. This is not a Liberal/Conservative thing, it's a religious thing. Auntie E. (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV
edit
The article Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (books).
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neutralitytalk 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at The Bible and homosexuality, you may be blocked from editing. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to defend the truth against people like you who are distorting the truth. That isn't disruptive editing, no matter how you try and spin it. It isn't POV-pushing...it's defending what's true. MOST Christian denominations see Romans 1 as against homosexuality, not SOME. -ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We are not here to "Defend" anything. We are here to write an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Fyi
edit
|
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
| Hi, ΙΧΘΥΣ, welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
The Right Stuff: September 2011
edit
By Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By Lionelt
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
The Right Stuff: October 2011
edit By Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
The Right Stuff: November 2011
edit By Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
The Right Stuff: January 2012
edit 
By Lionelt
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
By Lionelt
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.
The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
Ichthus: January 2012
edit |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Icthus
editChristianity newsletter: New format, new focus
edit
Hello,
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
edit| World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi ΙΧΘΥΣ! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
The Right Stuff June 2018
edit By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: July 2018
edit By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedia bias" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia bias. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia bias redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)