User talk:Owynhart

Bias Issues on Wikipedia

Partytemple, this is a commentary on balance issues w/ certain Wikipedia articles. I've made an edit to the lead of the Tommy Robinson article: "On 1 August 2018, he was released on bail pending a new hearing of the case."

The reason why? The Court of Appeal ruled that there had been procedural errors in the original decision to jail Robinson for 13 months! That was a flawed decision, and the lead must refer to it somehow. Some readers only read the lead, and not mentioning Robinson's release gives the impression that decision was ironclad. Yes, the lead is a summary of the main parts of the article; he was sentenced to 13 months in prison, then released on appeal.

All I've done was specify he was released on bail, but it's being challenged—just because Robinson must look as BAD as possible in the lead! I'm brutally honest, and that's the only reason regardless of what those other editors say. Why is it such a problem to mention he was released on appeal? Yes, the body of the article explains it, but that was a flawed decision, and the Court of Appeal sided w/ Robinson. A vote is now required just for that. It's frustrating! That's why it's hard for me to partake in Wiki. There is a clear bias against libertarian/conservative figures.

And Michael Jackson, though he was a Democrat/liberal, is experiencing the same bias (on some Wiki articles and the mainstream media). 'Leaving Neverland' was just voted one of the best TV series of 2019, and its director Dan Reed is proud!

One of the "best" TV series in spite of all those credibility issues, all the obvious lies and inconsistencies that were found? Besides the train station discrepancy, there is the Grand Canyon discrepancy, etc. Israell (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

On the Tommy Robinson article, I think it looks fine with your edit. I agree it could be misleading for readers who only read the lead because the sentence before your edit doesn't accurately tell the story. But I don't think it would necessary make Robinson look bad if the lead didn't include your edit. The sections below have further explanations about his trial including explaining the procedural errors. —Partytemple (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Previous account?

Did you have a previous Wikipedia account before this one? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No. —Partytemple (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Partytemple, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Trial of Michael Jackson have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Partytemple (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

500

Lets get you to 500.... best he doesn't interpret sources for you.

• use this tool on some articles you like will get you edits fast well at the same time helping with references.--Moxy 🍁 02:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use this. Partytemple (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Great job thus far. Glad your sticking around.☺ Moxy 🍁 02:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended confirmed status and meatpuppetry

I see that you deliberately made numerous edits to game the system by reaching extended confirmed status in order to evade page protection. It also seems that your purpose in doing so was to edit to support another editor making controversial edits, in violation of the policy on meatpuppetry. The purpose of extended confirmed protection is to prevent editing of this kind, not to let editors do it so long as they first work at making hundreds of irrelevant edits in order to get there. I have therefore removed your extended confirmed status. JamesBWatson (talk)