70.163.226.176

June 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Odysseus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cannolis (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2022

Hello, I'm Tommi1986. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Canton, Massachusetts have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 20:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave on the record that it was an attempt at a constructive edit, I happen to know the context of the jrc and it's rep, and it *is* in canton. Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2022

Hello, I'm Bennv123. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Snopes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also read WP:Copying within Wikipedia before making further similar edits. Bennv123 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello, I'm Roundish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Blake Masters have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Roundish ⋆tc) 01:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Blake Masters, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Babylon Bee into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Bennv123 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my failure to meet the standards set by Wikipedia. My intention was to draw attention to a Controversy between The Babylon Bee and Snopes. Because I felt that the subject was glossed over by the Article. My addition of a Controversy Section was taken down and I put it back, Several Times.. I am sorry. That was Immature and uncalled for. I promise that this will never happen again. Especially now that I know about the Talk feature on this website.

The Reason I Copied the section from The Babylon Bee Page is because, I was lazy.

I do still believe that A Controversy Section referencing the Bee should be added to the Snopes page.

If I may ask How might I bring this Addition up to code?

== Controversies ==

====The Babylon Bee and Mistaken Satire====

In March 2018, The Babylon Bee published a Satirical article quipping that CNN was using an industrial-sized washing machine to "spin" the news. Snopes fact-checked the article, rating it "False". Facebook then cited this fact-check in a warning message to The Babylon Bee, threatening to limit their content distribution and monetization. Ford tweeted a screenshot of the warning message to his followers, drawing public attention to the matter. Facebook quickly apologized, with the statement that "there's a difference between false news and satire. This was a mistake and should not have been rated false in our system. It's since been corrected and won't count against the domain in any way". Snopes later issued a fact-check of its previous fact-check, saying that "it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof."

In July 2019, The Babylon Bee published an article referring to a real-world incident, titled "Georgia Lawmaker Claims Chick-Fil-A Employee Told Her to Go Back to Her Country, Later Clarifies He Actually Said 'My Pleasure'", which Snopes rated "false". They also this time suggested that the article was deliberately deceptive, rather than genuinely satirical. Ford responded on Twitter, highlighting what he deemed to be problematic wording in the fact-check. The Babylon Bee also released a statement, calling the fact-check a "smear" that was "both dishonest and disconcerting". The statement concluded by saying a law firm had been retained to represent The Babylon Bee because "Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us". After receiving some backlash and a formal demand letter from The Babylon Bee's attorney, Snopes made revisions to the wording of the fact check and added an explanatory editor's note.

The Babylon Bee's chief executive, Seth Dillon, appeared on Fox News in August 2019 to discuss the incident. He said The Babylon Bee must take the matter seriously "because social networks, which we depend on for our traffic, have relied upon fact-checking sources in the past to determine what's fake news and what isn't. In cases where [Snopes] is calling us fake news and lumping us in with them rather than saying this is satire, that could actually damage us. It could put our business in jeopardy".

Snopes' co-founder David Mikkelson acknowledged to The New York Times that their fact-check was poorly written, but denied trying to discredit The Babylon Bee. In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Mikkelson stated, "The question you should be asking is not: 'why is Snopes addressing material from a particular site so often?' But, 'what is it about that site that makes its content trigger the fact-check threshold?'"

In August 2019, Snopes announced a new rating for satire sites called "labeled satire". Articles from The Babylon Bee that were previously rated "false" were updated with the new rating. Snopes explains the label: "This rating indicates that a claim is derived from content described by its creator and/or the wider audience as satire. Not all content described by its creator or audience as 'satire' necessarily constitutes satire, and this rating does not make a distinction between 'real' satire and content that may not be effectively recognized or understood as satire despite being labeled as such". Mann objected to this label in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, writing that the label "is meant to suggest that we are somehow making jokes in bad faith".

On Aug 16, 2019, Snopes Published an Article Titled "Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real" this was seen by some people as damage control and a way to justify their behavior toward the Babylon Bee. The Article has been criticized as a further misrepresentation of the Babylon Bee. The Survey presented in the article was conducted poorly.

==== Plagiarism by co-founder David Mikkelson ====

On August 13, 2021, BuzzFeed News published an investigation by reporter Dean Sterling Jones that showed David Mikkelson had used plagiarized material from different news sources in 54 articles between 2015 and 2019 in an effort to increase website traffic. Mikkelson also published plagiarized material under a pseudonym, "Jeff Zarronandia". The BuzzFeed inquiry prompted Snopes to launch an internal review of Mikkelson's articles and retracted 60 of them the day the Buzzfeed story appeared. Mikkelson admitted to committing "multiple serious copyright violations" and apologized for "serious lapses in judgment." He was suspended from editorial duties during the investigation, but remains an officer and stakeholder in the company. Jack Vidense (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, James Gunn, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HaeB (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason for my not providing a source is because the information came from the same Podcast provided as a source Here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090141/http://nerdist.com/the-indoor-kids-58-everything-with-james-gunn-nsfw/

"but has also said that he is "in some ways, anti-religion"."

My reason for adding that change is because I felt that the quote was taken out of context and did not accurately convey his views on Religion or Spirituality:

His words from 52:07--52:31

"It's not a cut and dry thing. Because it is shown in studies that people who have some sort of faith or religious spiritual practice are happier people. So how do you reconcile that with this other thing. So it's not like I'm Anti-. I mean i guess in some ways I am anti-religion, But I believe that some forms of spiritual practice that are really good for people"

I just wanted to provide more nuance.

Sorry. 70.163.226.176 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---