After several weeks of waiting they reject again my perfect article, second only to the Vitruvian man. The wikicel posted his typical copied 'n pasted response that provides zero (0) feedback.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
I am quoting fricking Reuters and The Independent what else do you want?
The Reviewer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Praxidicae
We can see that this king, PRAXIDICAEπ, stands with BLM; and this does not explains why he would have any sort of negative bias or prejudice against our platform, that stands against xenomisia and hate of any kind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wikipedia is a cabal, you need to grease the right palms.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm continually surprised at how quick said little cabal will revert anything that doesn't go with their view of the world. Even if something is objectively false they'll fight relentlessly to keep their version. I don't understand how they can do it for free.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just donβt go to any article without empirical evidence, like humanities, history, biology, etc. As of yet, math, chemistry, and physics are fineβ¦ for now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yea I thought reddit jannies are bad. When wikipedia jannie drama gets posted here I can't even decipher it through all the autism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Someone posted an argument once. The page was literally full of text arguing. I scrolled and closed the tab
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context