This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
WikiProject Finance & Investment April 2022 Newsletter
Hi! Welcome to the April newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our first regular newsletter and has plenty of exciting announcements. You have received this because you added yourself as a participant to the project, but will only receive future newsletters if you sign up for the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to do so. April Drive: The month-long April Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! New layout: The layout of the WikiProject has been greatly improved, with a navigation bar being added to the top of every page and separate pages for assessment and edit requests, templates, resources, and news. Come take a look! Signing up for the newsletter: To sign up for future newsletters about upcoming drives, recent promotions, and other miscellaneous topics, add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Mailing list. You will then receive them in your talk page regularly. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list. |
Just dropping by to say hi, and hopefully leave something for you to smile about: A central banker walked into a pizza place & ordered a pizza. When the pizza was done, he was called to the counter. The clerk asked: "Should I cut it into six pieces or eight?" The central banker paused in a moment of thought, then replied: "I'm pretty hungry right now. Best make it eight." Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
💚♥️🤍 NikolaosFanaris ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I will be taking a step back for the rest of the day. Things have been difficult lately for me personally, and there is a lot of strange behavior going on as of late, which I find contagious. I invite you to take a step back with me and breath some fresh air or drink something relaxing. Water your plants, pet your animals or your kids etc.. XD. Take care of yourself and be at peace even if for just a moment. It really helps. DN ( talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I just need to make a friendly request for you to avoid pulling me into discussions on editors talk pages that I am actively trying to avoid. If you care to see the response I received from them I think it may shed some light [1] [2], not to mention the new accusations of me that seemed to pop up around the same time [3], strangely enough. Thanks for your continued concern in all of these matters, sorry to keep crashing your page like this but all we can do is role with the punches from here out. Trying to WP:AGF as hard as I can...Cheers. DN ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
So maybe I misunderstood their last comment [4], however this was my original cause for concern [5] (wrong diff-fixed), along with Springee's response which I addressed with them here [6](wrong diff-fixed) DN ( talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)... DN ( talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO. As you know, the Julian Assange article is under a discretionary sanction stating "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." You reverted material in this edit (despite having consensus from an RFC that occurred in part due to your stonewalling of the content in the first place - added back after the RFC closed). Less than 24 hours later you reverted content that had just been added. Are you willing to discuss this violation here or do we need to go to AE? Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
ec... SPECIFICO, you need to be more careful. In this case, Mr Ernie is right. In general, and specifically here, deleting properly-sourced content generally runs contrary to our mission here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Yes, other concerns come into the picture, but don't abuse them. Deletion of reliably-sourced content usually runs contrary to our POLICY to WP:PRESERVE such content. That policy informs us that deletion should be avoided. Instead, we are supposed to fix any issues and improve the addition. Deletionism is generally dubious, unless problems literally cannot be fixed or there is a very clear policy violation. DUE weight and NOTNEWS are often questionable arguments as they are completely subjective personal interpretations, often used by POV pushers of all persuasions. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: thank you for improving AssangeDAO today, although I don't understand why you would do so, given that you advocate its deletion. Rinpoach ( talk) 14:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, greetings! Regarding your comment on my edit to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities: you feel that The New York Times is a weak source. With respect, I humbly submit that you're being a bit too stringent. The Times is a well-known news organization, and Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources favors well-known news organizations. The article I cited was a balanced story that quotes multiple investment professionals at well-known firms - Vanguard, PIMCO, Morningstar, Raymond James. If it would satisfy you, I'd be happy to re-write the language on the Times story to quote by name the people at those firms that made the statements. But I think we should keep the Times citation. It improves the article. It's also more reliable than the 14-year-old post on InvestingDaily.com that now graces the TIPS section. Now that's what I'd call a weak source. Unlike The Times, I've never heard of it, and their About Us statement doesn't impress. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi SPECIFICO. Would you mind having a look at my edit request for Jonathan D. Gray, the president and COO of The Blackstone Group. I saw your name listed as a member of Category:WikiProject Finance & Investment participants, so I hope this will be of interest to you. Current information on the page nearly stops about 3 years ago -- this is to make it more current Talk:Jonathan D. Gray. Thanks so much for your attention. ThomasClements Blackstone ( talk) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Did you really mean WP:PAG? It seems to be about how to write guidelines and policies? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SPECIFICO. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO. I'm Michael from Sculptor Capital. I noticed your active involvement in WikiProject: Finance & Investment and WP:ECON, and would appreciate your review of my pending edit request. This edit request relates to including the resolution of the lawsuits mentioned in the article. Other editors have helped me improve and expand the page in the past, but they are not currently responding to edit requests. Thank you Michael at Sculptor Capital ( talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Today you closed a discussion on an edit request [10] titled, "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022" on the Donald Trump talk page. You explained, "Request has been answered. Circular discussion is pointless." Your action seems to assume that an editor has the monopoly to make a final determination on an edit, which I don't think is the case. An editor answered the edit request, but I wanted to discuss their answer and build consensus about the edit and the edit request. I believe the closing of the discussion was improper. Supporting documentation:
Documentation to consider:
Therefore, lacking the closure proper reason and summary reflecting basis on policies or guidelines, I appeal this closure and respectfully request that the discussion be reopened. Thanks. Thinker78 ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Now I think we all are officially "aware"
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-1992 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Uh no, that's not what the proposal at List of coups is about. I'm the main contributor to the main spot we discuss the label of "coup" to Trump 2020, and I am compiling more research (all of which supports the coup label) at my Sanbox2, which youre welcome to visit. You're welcome to add RS suggestions at the sandbox2 talk page, if you don't want to work them into the section I linked above (or elsewhere). At the list article, adding "possible" PLUS the explanatory LISTCRIT paragraph is just another way of describing our standard P&G in the title and LISTCRIT, nothing more, nothing less. But it should end the drama some folks are injecting as they try to fight the coup label applied to Jan 6. And ending the drama so we can improve content is the actual intent of the proposal NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anything is sufficiently unique that it merits copying. The important next thing, at the article, is to develop LISTCRIT. Sorry the party was crashed, S, I was enjoying our two way. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
I would just like to inform you regarding that you have been mentioned regarding your reverts on the page Manifesto against work.
Kind regards,
Pauloroboto ( talk) 17:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the template. As I stated, the template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. You had not given any rationale for removing the template. The discussion was to form a consensus it appears you acted unilaterally. Why? Myotus ( talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If you do feel consensus cannot be made you have the option of taking it to arbitration however, I do feel consensus can be reached. Myotus ( talk) 20:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed here that you refer to the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman as "Uncle Miltie" Friedman. Using demeaning names for academics that support views in opposition to your own is the language of a school bully. I remember you using the same trick twice (long ago) when debating me. Please do not do it again. Reissgo ( talk) 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. In the talk page of Donald Trump, you closed the discussion started by SandRand97 titled Political legacies. I request that you reopen said discussion because you were an involved editor in the dispute and it was done too prematurely, among other potential issues. I believe this closure was not according to Wikipedia's guidance.
Given the aforementioned guides, guidelines, policies, and issues, I respectfully request that you reopen the discussion. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an involved ed, and I concur that it was properly hatted. The thread asserts a lot of editor opinion, but contains not a single RS. It assserts fact in WIKIVOICE which are inevitably the sort of controversial things that will require inline attribution. Had I closed it, I would have simply closed it by saying, like I usually do with such threads, " WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM click 'show' to read anyway". I'll also comment on Thinker78's pestering of Specifico here. You're just repeating yourself. See WP:Tendentious editing. If you want to talk about Trump's great legacy, fine. Leave here, and start a new thread at the talk page with your proposed RSs and draft text. Be constructive instead of just bickering NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nweil ( talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenging closure of Political legacies thread. Per Challenging other closures. Thank you. — Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~"}} I have mentioned you in a thread on the administrators noticeboard.
Kind regards // @ Pauloroboto Pauloroboto ( talk) 19:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it's in Wiki's article on the movie version of The Bonfire of the Vanities. 159.182.38.8 ( talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I brought the Foundation for Economic Education article (more in a generic sense / interest) at the NPOV noticeboard.North8000 ( talk) 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
So far, you have made Revert 1, Revert 2 and Revert 3 to edits from two different editors. Both I and the editor who made the original edit you reverted believe this to be appropriate content, which would be a consensus in favor for retention. It's a few dozen characters in an article that runs for 5,000, so it hardly has any weight whatsoever, let alone UNDUE weight. You demand that other people use talk pages, but you make long speeches in your edit summary and didn't use talk pages to discuss, even though the other editor appears to have tried, at which point you demanded a source; that source has been provided and the wording tweaked to address your concerns. You talk about edit warring, but you are at 3RR already. The WP:ONUS you cite has been satisfied.
A WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. The ONUS is now on you. Alansohn ( talk) 19:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for attacking you in that AfD and on the talk page. I really should have just asked why you made the revert, since your explanation is understandable given the claims are still unverified. I've also decided to take a short break. X-Editor ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Banned user is back (User:Karmaisking). Quacks like a duck with a megaphone. Same 300k screed. Could you please oblige. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 08:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my comment at User:Seraphimblade’s user talk, and your reply to it, I assume your main concern was canvassing, is that correct? Perhaps I should protect myself by notifying a bunch of other editors too, but I think it would be pointless because I wasn’t trying to get Seraphimblade to come support me at the article talk page, and I don’t want to waste other users’ time by inviting them to a discussion that I’m not really interested in expanding. According to WP:OWNTALK, “the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user”. As I understand, the former may raise canvassing concerns but the latter does not. My note at his user talk was to discuss an edit of his, in particular this one. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Julian Assange. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL when editing at Talk:Donald Trump. This recent edit does not encourage a cooperative environment that is at the core of Wikipedia. You have already been warned about such behavior at your recent AE visit, and I'd suggest you show more respect of your fellow editors. Telling people "to read some history" is rude under nearly all circumstances, as well as rambling with pointless and unhelpful rhetorical questions. On a personal note, I will not cooperate with you when you behave in this manner. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
WikiProject Finance & Investment April 2022 Newsletter
Hi! Welcome to the April newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our first regular newsletter and has plenty of exciting announcements. You have received this because you added yourself as a participant to the project, but will only receive future newsletters if you sign up for the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to do so. April Drive: The month-long April Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! New layout: The layout of the WikiProject has been greatly improved, with a navigation bar being added to the top of every page and separate pages for assessment and edit requests, templates, resources, and news. Come take a look! Signing up for the newsletter: To sign up for future newsletters about upcoming drives, recent promotions, and other miscellaneous topics, add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Mailing list. You will then receive them in your talk page regularly. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list. |
Just dropping by to say hi, and hopefully leave something for you to smile about: A central banker walked into a pizza place & ordered a pizza. When the pizza was done, he was called to the counter. The clerk asked: "Should I cut it into six pieces or eight?" The central banker paused in a moment of thought, then replied: "I'm pretty hungry right now. Best make it eight." Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
💚♥️🤍 NikolaosFanaris ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I will be taking a step back for the rest of the day. Things have been difficult lately for me personally, and there is a lot of strange behavior going on as of late, which I find contagious. I invite you to take a step back with me and breath some fresh air or drink something relaxing. Water your plants, pet your animals or your kids etc.. XD. Take care of yourself and be at peace even if for just a moment. It really helps. DN ( talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I just need to make a friendly request for you to avoid pulling me into discussions on editors talk pages that I am actively trying to avoid. If you care to see the response I received from them I think it may shed some light [1] [2], not to mention the new accusations of me that seemed to pop up around the same time [3], strangely enough. Thanks for your continued concern in all of these matters, sorry to keep crashing your page like this but all we can do is role with the punches from here out. Trying to WP:AGF as hard as I can...Cheers. DN ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
So maybe I misunderstood their last comment [4], however this was my original cause for concern [5] (wrong diff-fixed), along with Springee's response which I addressed with them here [6](wrong diff-fixed) DN ( talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)... DN ( talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO. As you know, the Julian Assange article is under a discretionary sanction stating "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." You reverted material in this edit (despite having consensus from an RFC that occurred in part due to your stonewalling of the content in the first place - added back after the RFC closed). Less than 24 hours later you reverted content that had just been added. Are you willing to discuss this violation here or do we need to go to AE? Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
ec... SPECIFICO, you need to be more careful. In this case, Mr Ernie is right. In general, and specifically here, deleting properly-sourced content generally runs contrary to our mission here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Yes, other concerns come into the picture, but don't abuse them. Deletion of reliably-sourced content usually runs contrary to our POLICY to WP:PRESERVE such content. That policy informs us that deletion should be avoided. Instead, we are supposed to fix any issues and improve the addition. Deletionism is generally dubious, unless problems literally cannot be fixed or there is a very clear policy violation. DUE weight and NOTNEWS are often questionable arguments as they are completely subjective personal interpretations, often used by POV pushers of all persuasions. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: thank you for improving AssangeDAO today, although I don't understand why you would do so, given that you advocate its deletion. Rinpoach ( talk) 14:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, greetings! Regarding your comment on my edit to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities: you feel that The New York Times is a weak source. With respect, I humbly submit that you're being a bit too stringent. The Times is a well-known news organization, and Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources favors well-known news organizations. The article I cited was a balanced story that quotes multiple investment professionals at well-known firms - Vanguard, PIMCO, Morningstar, Raymond James. If it would satisfy you, I'd be happy to re-write the language on the Times story to quote by name the people at those firms that made the statements. But I think we should keep the Times citation. It improves the article. It's also more reliable than the 14-year-old post on InvestingDaily.com that now graces the TIPS section. Now that's what I'd call a weak source. Unlike The Times, I've never heard of it, and their About Us statement doesn't impress. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi SPECIFICO. Would you mind having a look at my edit request for Jonathan D. Gray, the president and COO of The Blackstone Group. I saw your name listed as a member of Category:WikiProject Finance & Investment participants, so I hope this will be of interest to you. Current information on the page nearly stops about 3 years ago -- this is to make it more current Talk:Jonathan D. Gray. Thanks so much for your attention. ThomasClements Blackstone ( talk) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Did you really mean WP:PAG? It seems to be about how to write guidelines and policies? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SPECIFICO. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 02:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO. I'm Michael from Sculptor Capital. I noticed your active involvement in WikiProject: Finance & Investment and WP:ECON, and would appreciate your review of my pending edit request. This edit request relates to including the resolution of the lawsuits mentioned in the article. Other editors have helped me improve and expand the page in the past, but they are not currently responding to edit requests. Thank you Michael at Sculptor Capital ( talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Today you closed a discussion on an edit request [10] titled, "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022" on the Donald Trump talk page. You explained, "Request has been answered. Circular discussion is pointless." Your action seems to assume that an editor has the monopoly to make a final determination on an edit, which I don't think is the case. An editor answered the edit request, but I wanted to discuss their answer and build consensus about the edit and the edit request. I believe the closing of the discussion was improper. Supporting documentation:
Documentation to consider:
Therefore, lacking the closure proper reason and summary reflecting basis on policies or guidelines, I appeal this closure and respectfully request that the discussion be reopened. Thanks. Thinker78 ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Now I think we all are officially "aware"
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-1992 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Uh no, that's not what the proposal at List of coups is about. I'm the main contributor to the main spot we discuss the label of "coup" to Trump 2020, and I am compiling more research (all of which supports the coup label) at my Sanbox2, which youre welcome to visit. You're welcome to add RS suggestions at the sandbox2 talk page, if you don't want to work them into the section I linked above (or elsewhere). At the list article, adding "possible" PLUS the explanatory LISTCRIT paragraph is just another way of describing our standard P&G in the title and LISTCRIT, nothing more, nothing less. But it should end the drama some folks are injecting as they try to fight the coup label applied to Jan 6. And ending the drama so we can improve content is the actual intent of the proposal NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anything is sufficiently unique that it merits copying. The important next thing, at the article, is to develop LISTCRIT. Sorry the party was crashed, S, I was enjoying our two way. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
I would just like to inform you regarding that you have been mentioned regarding your reverts on the page Manifesto against work.
Kind regards,
Pauloroboto ( talk) 17:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the template. As I stated, the template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. You had not given any rationale for removing the template. The discussion was to form a consensus it appears you acted unilaterally. Why? Myotus ( talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If you do feel consensus cannot be made you have the option of taking it to arbitration however, I do feel consensus can be reached. Myotus ( talk) 20:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed here that you refer to the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman as "Uncle Miltie" Friedman. Using demeaning names for academics that support views in opposition to your own is the language of a school bully. I remember you using the same trick twice (long ago) when debating me. Please do not do it again. Reissgo ( talk) 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. In the talk page of Donald Trump, you closed the discussion started by SandRand97 titled Political legacies. I request that you reopen said discussion because you were an involved editor in the dispute and it was done too prematurely, among other potential issues. I believe this closure was not according to Wikipedia's guidance.
Given the aforementioned guides, guidelines, policies, and issues, I respectfully request that you reopen the discussion. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an involved ed, and I concur that it was properly hatted. The thread asserts a lot of editor opinion, but contains not a single RS. It assserts fact in WIKIVOICE which are inevitably the sort of controversial things that will require inline attribution. Had I closed it, I would have simply closed it by saying, like I usually do with such threads, " WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM click 'show' to read anyway". I'll also comment on Thinker78's pestering of Specifico here. You're just repeating yourself. See WP:Tendentious editing. If you want to talk about Trump's great legacy, fine. Leave here, and start a new thread at the talk page with your proposed RSs and draft text. Be constructive instead of just bickering NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nweil ( talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenging closure of Political legacies thread. Per Challenging other closures. Thank you. — Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~"}} I have mentioned you in a thread on the administrators noticeboard.
Kind regards // @ Pauloroboto Pauloroboto ( talk) 19:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it's in Wiki's article on the movie version of The Bonfire of the Vanities. 159.182.38.8 ( talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I brought the Foundation for Economic Education article (more in a generic sense / interest) at the NPOV noticeboard.North8000 ( talk) 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
So far, you have made Revert 1, Revert 2 and Revert 3 to edits from two different editors. Both I and the editor who made the original edit you reverted believe this to be appropriate content, which would be a consensus in favor for retention. It's a few dozen characters in an article that runs for 5,000, so it hardly has any weight whatsoever, let alone UNDUE weight. You demand that other people use talk pages, but you make long speeches in your edit summary and didn't use talk pages to discuss, even though the other editor appears to have tried, at which point you demanded a source; that source has been provided and the wording tweaked to address your concerns. You talk about edit warring, but you are at 3RR already. The WP:ONUS you cite has been satisfied.
A WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. The ONUS is now on you. Alansohn ( talk) 19:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for attacking you in that AfD and on the talk page. I really should have just asked why you made the revert, since your explanation is understandable given the claims are still unverified. I've also decided to take a short break. X-Editor ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Banned user is back (User:Karmaisking). Quacks like a duck with a megaphone. Same 300k screed. Could you please oblige. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 08:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding my comment at User:Seraphimblade’s user talk, and your reply to it, I assume your main concern was canvassing, is that correct? Perhaps I should protect myself by notifying a bunch of other editors too, but I think it would be pointless because I wasn’t trying to get Seraphimblade to come support me at the article talk page, and I don’t want to waste other users’ time by inviting them to a discussion that I’m not really interested in expanding. According to WP:OWNTALK, “the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user”. As I understand, the former may raise canvassing concerns but the latter does not. My note at his user talk was to discuss an edit of his, in particular this one. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Julian Assange. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL when editing at Talk:Donald Trump. This recent edit does not encourage a cooperative environment that is at the core of Wikipedia. You have already been warned about such behavior at your recent AE visit, and I'd suggest you show more respect of your fellow editors. Telling people "to read some history" is rude under nearly all circumstances, as well as rambling with pointless and unhelpful rhetorical questions. On a personal note, I will not cooperate with you when you behave in this manner. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)