This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ItsPugle (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 3 May 2024 (→Independent Australia - pattern of 'forcing' your opinion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:53, 3 May 2024 by ItsPugle (talk | contribs) (→Independent Australia - pattern of 'forcing' your opinion: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Independent Australia - pattern of 'forcing' your opinion
Hi Pete. You seem to be making a very large number of edits blanking Independent Australia and any use of it as a reference, and I am concerned that these edits - which look like trying to force your personal opinion despite failing consensus - may be more disruptive than beneficial. As I have previously highlighted, your proposed discussion several years ago to deprecate IA as an acceptable source failed to reach consensus. Your repeated loaded claims of it being a "political opinion blog" despite respected media audit organisations finding IA as highly accurate/reliable with a moderate left-wing bias (which they openly disclose) have lack any evidence or consensus. I can see repeated patterns where you appear to be searching across Misplaced Pages for any reference of IA, and within minutes of each other, blanking content with the same edit description of "IA not a RS" without any further explanation or evidence that you have tried to look for alternative sources. I would encourage you in good-faith to focus on other ways you can contribute that don't focus on just blanking IA, such as looking for other references yourself, and would recommend you don't continually throw out the same claims of partiality without evidence or recent discussion/consensus. Tim (Talk) 12:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)