User talk:The Conservative Journalist

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, The Conservative Journalist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! I appreciate it a lot. Yes, I am enjoying constructing Wikipedia. Thanks for showing me how to sign my name. I was always wondering how people do that. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

LLM usage

Hi there,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. By and large, you have been really helpful in expanding and improving lead sections.

Now, I may be wrong on this, but it feels like a few of your edits have consisted largely of content generated by large language models (LLMs) and/or AI chatbots (this edit, for instance). It is important to be cautious when using LLMs to edit Wikipedia, especially since they are prone to using non-neutral words and hallucinating or making up information. There is a good essay on editing using LLMs that can be found here. Essays are not actual guidelines or policies, but they do offer helpful advice.

Anyways, just make sure you to review the output you get from LLMs for factuality and neutrality. Other than this small point, you are doing really well. I look forward to seeing you continue to improve Wikipedia with this in mind! Nearbi 02:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I will try to do as you suggested in the future. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Is using AI to write sections actually permitted on Wikipedia? I was just testing it to see what it would do. Please let me know your thoughts. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 16:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

How do you know? @Phlogiston Enthusiast @User:Nearbi said that we it is allowed; you just need to make sure it is neutral. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless you know that is a fact, then do not plainly state assumptions based on your mind. Stop discriminating against people based on their usernames. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

There is not discrimination happening. I would like to respectfully request that you not contact me further, and I contact you no further. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 00:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no rule explicitly against using LLMs, but just keep in mind that AI-generated edits will get way more scrutiny than human-made edits.

When using LLMs/AI to edit, you will probably be expected to (this is a summary of WP:LLM):

• Show evidence in your edit that:
  • You exercised careful judgement in your usage of AI,
  • You sufficiently reviewed the output,
  • You understand how LLMs work,
  • You are not blindly experimenting with using AI on Wikipedia, and
  • That the edit complies with the most strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies
• State in your edit summary:
  • That you used AI
  • The model and version used

Nearbi 17:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I won't. I think that if anyone wanted to ever read an AI encyclopedia, Grokipedia would be theirs. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I did? What was the page? The Conservative Journalist (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, talk:Evolution and talk:Creationism. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Pope Leo XIV

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pope Leo XIV, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Abeka

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Abeka, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm UtherSRG. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Abeka seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I apologize for this; I'm still new to Wikipedia. I will do my best to keep it neutral in the future.The Conservative Journalist (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps NPOV should be called normative POV. It is not normative leftist or rightist, but includes stuff like respect for mainstream science, respect for fact-checking, respect for mainstream academic sources, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Who were the closely related people? I am not trying to be contentious; ultimately, though we have different POVs, we should all strive to be neutral. If my edits were too opinionated, I apologize and will try to do better next time. Thank you for your feedback. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Routine alert, you edited about a Us election. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Kansas City Chiefs. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. I did not intentionally do that, for I was just playing around with Twinkle. I will refrain from that. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

k. a lot of times it's accidental anyway User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 20:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pipe058. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Audacity (audio editor) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. pipe058^{Talk * Contribs} 20:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Pipe058. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ray Comfort seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. pipe058^{Talk * Contribs} 20:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Young Earth creationism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Manifesto for various Aspirant Position in the Political circle

This is for the post of Chairman of a state manifesto. As a committed member of the African Democratic Congress in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), I present this manifesto as a roadmap to reposition our party for credibility, inclusiveness, and electoral victory. This vision is anchored on ADC’s core principles of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and transformational leadership. Pricelessnikky (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

this is Election season in Nigeria so this is highly needed because the nation would be floating a whole lot of ASPIRANTS Pricelessnikky (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pricelessnikky, I want to let you know that Wikipedia talk pages are not for electioneering. They are mainly for discussing edits and things related to Wikipedia. If you would like to do so, please do it somewhere else, like an online forum. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Pricelessnikky. as The Conservative Journalist said, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so please put yours up somewhere else, like an online forum. many of them are perfect for that. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 18:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Other users' talkpages

They can delete warnings. There are very few things they can't delete, such as declined unblock requests while they're still blocked. User talk:GraemeGrady19 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't know that. I appreciate you telling me. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Figured you were fairly new here and didn’t know yet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Their deletion is taken as proof that they’ve seen the warning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Google Chrome

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Google Chrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi The Conservative Journalist. Regarding Abeka, I think tgeorgescu already tried to get this point across a few weeks ago: WP:NPOV means "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If reliable sources (RS) state that Abeka's books "have been criticized for lack of academic rigor and misinformation on scientific and historical subjects", then we reflect that, regardless of whether you, me or somebody consider that as having a liberal or any other slant.

If you find that that sentence is not a reflection of RS coverage of Abeka, then you should show that at Talk:Abeka. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the definition of a reliable source? If Wikipedia had been around a couple thousand years ago, they would have stated that the earth was flat. So, is the earth flat? The answer is no. As time goes on, people see that what was in mainstream media several hundred years ago was wrong. We cannot always trust what is in the media.

Major news outlets like the Orlando Sentinel (from which the citation comes from), The New York Times, The Washington Post, and such, reflect upon biased liberal ideals. I think that is not a reliable source. We should not be placing newspapers as reliable sources.

Also, I found other sources that say that Abeka has a high academic standard of rigor.

https://www.lighthousewillis.com/blog/early-learning/abeka-curriculum/

https://howdoihomeschool.com/abeka-academy-homeschool-reviews/

https://palmettoindependenteducators.com/PIE-Pieces/Curricula-Reviews/Language-Arts/Language-Arts-Resources/Abeka-Review

https://www.premierchristianacademy.com/blog/benefits-of-abeka-curriculum-learn-more/

Please let me know what you think. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the definition of a reliable source? See Wikipedia:reliable sources.

So, is the earth flat? The answer is no. I agree. Claiming the earth is flat is as scientifically unsound as the young Earth creationism Abeka appears to promote.

We should not be placing newspapers as reliable sources. But we do and for good season. As the "News organizations" section at Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).".

Regardless what potential political leanings the Orlando Sentinel might have, I reckon we can trust that it truthfully relays statements from "experts from the University of Florida and University of Central Florida".

I found other sources […]. Those appear to be educational institutions with Abeka curricula so they're not independent of the subject. See Wikipedia:independent sources. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I can see that this reflects a liberal bias. You may do so at your own pleasure. I am not going to continue this discussion, because I don't think it would be very profitable. You seem to be picking and choosing which sources that you like. I'm not going to argue with your stance on Abeka. I leave it to you, so your edit will stay in place. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

A note

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks! The Conservative Journalist (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Brave Search

Please be careful to avoid self-published sources as you did in this edit. Adding sources is great, and welcome. Brave (the company) is going to say all sorts of great things about their product. Of course. :) That means their claims are not a reliable source. If you can find a good secondary source that says Brave is Y or X, then great. I hope these links are helpful if you haven't come across them yet. Ckoerner (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)