User talk:Krakaet

Media bias

"Corporations are people, my friend," is a quote by the conservative candidate, not the liberal candidate. And it was the conservatives on the Supreme Court, not the liberals, who in a five to four decission ruled that "freedom of speech" applied to corporate campaign contributions. I'm sure that there are a few cases where corporate bias has resulted in liberal news coverage, but I can't think of any. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's a little unfair to say that because conservative JUSTICES happened to favor the citizens united ruling, that this somehow translates into conservative media bias? Please, sir, don't confuse the two. The article we are debating specifically refers to bias in the MEDIA.--Krakaet (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Death of Anastasio Hernández-Rojas. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

There are grave inaccuracies and outright bias demonstrated in presentation of information on the Three Percenters wikipedia page. It is clear that this page confuses and integrates information from two distinct groups with similar names. However those groups are not the same, as one is a militia and one is not. The current logo, leader, stated purpose and founder are also attributed to the Militia group while the website is that of a second, non-militia, volunteer organization named The Three Percenters Originals. This is easily demonstrated by clicking on the www.threepercenters.org website link. The Militia's website is currently being supported by this URL: http://www.iiisecurityforce.com. Why this was not better researched by MartinezMD is unclear at this time. The Three Percenters Originals website link is to that of the volunteer organization, which is misleading.

The history commentary and edits are continuously revised back to references about the Militia while confusing that information with the Originals organization. Wikipedia must allow appropriate editing so that the accuracy and truthfulness of the information on the page reflects that of the currents facts. Right now it appears that is not the case, and that attaining this goal has been consistently redirected. DuchessThree (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DuchessThree I can't say that i disagree with you there. That is where my confusion comes in as well with this idea of it as a militia group, which certainly was news to me!Krakaet (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your predicament. How can I help to clarify this page? I am currently doing research and creating accurate and informative content regarding the Three Percenters Originals organization, and I am also happy to assist in your efforts to maintain more truthful information about the organization on wikipedia. DuchessThree (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]