User talk:UnsourcedChecker

June 2020

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stacey Abrams, you may be blocked from editing. You have twice rewritten a sentence in the lead, alleging that it is "biased", even though it is well sourced in the article text. It is now well sourced in the lead as well. Even so, an IP using your exact wording just rewrote it again. This is amounting to edit warring. If you have a problem with the wording, take it to the article talk page, but do not revert again. MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're a joke if you think that's not biased. I'm simply stating the facts that Abrams thought there was voter suppression, not like the previous statement that put a shadow over the legitimacy of the election just because of Abrams accusations. Be more like the ap and less like CNN please. UnsourcedChecker (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources do not reflect Abrams' statements, but statements made by independent journalists and activists. The AJC does not mention Abrams at all, nor does the Greg Palast news release. The issue of strict voter registration law enforcement is one that is fraught with political divides, but the facts that are presented are true: Abrams' election loss was marked by accusations, and the accusations did not come from her alone. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I can agree with you, it nows says "marked" instead of "marred" which changes the connotation. Yes, the election was noted (as in marked) with accusations but no the election wasn't spoiled (as in marred). Cheers! UnsourcedChecker (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]