This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 21 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
For some odd reason we ignore the alleged cover-up which is in progress. There are plenty of RS which refer to it, even if they may not use that exact term. Denials, lies, "forgetting", then forced admissions, changing stories, blocking of investigations, moving the goalposts, etc, are what's happening. These factors should be mentioned. Here is a part of the cover-up. These are Trump associates who have hidden, lied about, "forgotten", and then been forced to admit their Russian contacts and repeated meetings. Some have even been acting as foreign agents (F), and later had to register. Four (X) have stepped back in one way or another because of these suspicious connections. Several have seen the campaign and administration distance itself from them, with denials of their importance or roles, even denying knowing them. Later the truth has come out.
Lead sentence
References
B4It might be a good idea to change your ivote to B4. I just changed mine. Good edit, btw. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, the only reason I try is to see if we can meet Any... part way. It seems important to them to see the word "majority" in the lead. Here's another attempt, incorporating your thoughts:
BullRangifer ( talk) 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Clapper on evidence of collusionHey Bullrangifer, I got your message on the "latest" Clapper interview. Bottom line he testified under oath in front of congress that NO evidence of collusion existed between Trump and Russia during his tenure. My gripe with your revert was you did it because you don't like what he said. He said it and it was reliably sourced that he said it. If you WAITED until he changed his story somewhat and then deleted my piece you would have made a stronger case. I like your user page and agree 100% on your PRESERVE piece. Let all facts be written and the reader can make up their own mind. I almost never revert a good faith edit. I try to collaborate and make constructive additions/ changes. I wish you would give me the same courtesy and hopefully we can work together in the future to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Aceruss ( talk) 07:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Cover-up investigationThe Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
References
Trivial contentSometimes an editor will object to content they deem trivial. Does WP:TRIVIA apply, or does it only apply to "trivia sections"? Whether to include such content is an editorial call based on how RS treat the matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS, or is covered by multiple RS, then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinions don't matter. We should mention it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC) How not to create "balance" in an articleAdding unreliable sources to create "balance" is a bad idea for many reasons. Doing so would not "balance" the article. NPOV does not mean a neutered presentation of all views, with an even balance of views from each political POV. NPOV refers to editorial conduct and how editors present biased information from RS. They must preserve the source's existing bias. If an article shows a bias in one direction, it should be that way because that is the dominant bias in RS. That bias must not be changed. Not all opinions are equal, and facts do tend to favor one POV. The article should give more weight to that POV. The problem exposed by such attempts to add "balance" is that reading unreliable sources twists one's thinking, and then we end up with the twisted view affecting editing, giving unreliable sources more weight than reliable ones in a manner which actually promotes falsehood. It would be better for such editors to stop reading unreliable sources. Editors who read unreliable sources without extremely good BS filters cause problems here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The price is rightThough it has been removed now the quote you put the CN tag was lifted from the source above the text. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Great suggestionsYou're making some great suggestions on the talk page for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, thank you. Got any ideas for more new articles on the topic I can write and create? Sagecandor ( talk) 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Wanted to let you know that I'd retiredThank you for earlier affirming interactions. Always was a great pleasure working with you, creating prompts for your attention and seeing them acted on, etc. You are the best of this place, mate. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 ( talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Thank youThank you, for your clarity, at [1]. Sagecandor ( talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Trump campaign–Russian meeting2nd statement says 20 to 30 minutes for the meeting. Kushner was there about 7 min. Look at the size of the article - and still to this day, it's a nothing burger. With the tarmac incident, there was a flurry of emails going back and forth - DOJ advising MSM what to say based on Talking Points that were prepared. The Phoenix ABC affiliate are the ones that caught it all - told hdqtrs - then ABC's Levin called DOJ tipped off Director Newman, and the panic began. Comey even sold Lynch out at his hearing because of that meeting. It's a big deal...some heads will roll as a result, but the most damage will be to WaPo and NYTimes when they don't need that kind of damage. Wait for it. It's a helluva lot more interesting than Donald Trump's handshake for Pete's sake. I know full well why that article was AfD'd only 2 days after creation - we don't even do that to IPs at NPP. Atsme 📞 📧 04:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Note that I haven't said anything about the merits of the AfD. BTW, it's not uncommon for new articles to be AfDed the same day they are created. I have seen it many times. As far as the relative importance of the two meetings, the tarmac meeting may turn out to be something, although no evidence of wrongdoing has been proven, only the appearance. It was an unwise occurrence, and there is evidence that they tried to do damage control because it could look bad. Evidence of damage control doesn't prove anything really bad happened, but it fuels conspiracy theories. The Trump Tower meeting has great significance as it is the event which cracked open the investigation in a whole new way. It provided the first public evidence that Trump Sr. was pulling the strings and controlling the narrative. That's about public perception. The FBI and CIA have known for some time. They are starting with the low hanging fruit, keeping those higher up in the dark. This way they can get more evidence, flip witnesses, etc. They are giving Trump Sr and others plenty of rope to hang themselves. They act very guilty. By the time Mueller's team gets to the center of the spider web, with Trump Sr. in the middle, he will have been incriminating himself with more lies, coverups, destruction of evidence, etc, and in the end the coverup may be worse than the crime, and enough to convict for obstruction of justice. That's the lesson we have from history. Keep in mind that Al Capone was not convicted of murder, extortion, etc, but of tax evasion. People of power work through others, keeping their hands "clean". They end up going down for other crimes. His decision on Air Force One to override the existing "consensus" decision was fatal. Trump Jr, Kushner, and their advisors and lawyers, had already made a "consensus" decision to issue statements which were transparent and honest, because they knew that the facts would come out. When presented with this decision, Trump Sr. literally "trumped" it, went to the cabin in the plane and dictated a very different statement, one which was deceptive and misleading. That version was published and is now evidence against him. It proves he tried to coverup a damaging meeting, a meeting which wasn't about adoptions, as he said, but about lifting the sanctions, IOW about the Magnitsky Act. (That has been Trump's avowed goal for some time, and the deal described on p. 30 of the dossier and worked out by Carter Page: Trump would get 19% of Rosneft ($11 BILLION) if he (1) became president, and then (2) lifted the sanctions. That way Putin, Trump, and Rex Tillerson (Exxon Mobil) could make a lot of money from blocked oil. The deal has partially been fulfilled: When Trump won the election, Rosneft was partially liquidated and 19.5% (that 0.5% was for fees and probably to pay Page) was transferred, through a series of shell company transactions, to a Cayman Islands account. The deal was signed on December 7, 2016. BTW, if Trump doesn't succeed in lifting the sanctions, he doesn't get that money. Putin will probably just keep it and release the "golden showers" tapes at a convenient time.) That decision to issue a deceptive statement provided evidence to the public that Trump Sr. was not as innocent as he has portrayed himself to be. It also provided a pretext for Mueller to convene another grand jury, using that meeting as the can opener to start their investigations. The meeting had all the types of people in attendance for lots of investigation. There's even a joke about the meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer & a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender says 'you guys must be here for the adoptions'." The investigation can, if necessary, examine every single aspect of the lives of all those unsavory characters, and for some odd reason, Trump Sr. is at the center connecting them all. Placing all those people in the same room at the same time was like dropping a golden apple into Mueller's hand. They did not gather in Trump Tower to discuss adoptions for 20-30 minutes. Don't believe that for a minute. They are all big players with very big fish to fry. I suspect that some day we'll learn that Donald Sr. was at the meeting. He left another meeting and went to Trump Tower and was in the building at the time. If he was not in the meeting, why would Lewandowski lie about Trump's location at the time? Don't deprecate the importance of the Trump Tower meeting. Small things can end up having great significance. Just sayin' -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject ChiropracticHi! I've noticed your early edits on chiro-related pages, and from your user page can tell you're still interested in editing chiropractic articles. I recently started up a WikiProject on the topic and was wondering if you'd be interested in adding your name to the list and offering some ideas for the improvement of all chiro articles on the site. From the looks of it we have no GA or FA articles, and after all related pages are added to the project the first goal will be to reduce the number of stubs and start tackling some of the more rampant bias seen on a few specific articles. If you're interested, you can find the project here: WP:CHIRO. It's still in draft form, until more people sign on! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 04:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Danney Williams (September 27)![]()
Editing BLP materialI have redacted BLP violations from your comment. Please remember that BLP applies to all material in English Wikipedia, including talk pages. And please don't use Wikipedia as your soapbox. Politrukki ( talk) 23:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, you're being very selective. The next words come pretty close to confirming that the 19% allegation could very well be true, without directly admitting it, although the last words grudgingly come pretty close:
As the sources I have provided above show, the 19% figure mentioned in the dossier became an actual transaction, ending up in that Cayman Islands account. (I'm sure that was just a coincidence....
I understand you don't want to see anything that might indicate that Trump and Page are trying to hide something, and are not being completely honest. Well, the many parts you leave out sure sound suspiciously like a hostile witness trying not to admit wrongdoing, but while also trying to not say anything which could later be interpreted as perjury, IOW not complete denials that something "might" have happened. He leaves the door open because he suspects (because he knows what happened and that the evidence likely exists somewhere) that Mueller, Steele, the CIA, FBI, MI6, French, Dutch, German, and other intelligence agencies actually have conclusive proof, maybe even recordings, which confirm without a doubt that he said what the dossier says he said. He knows that Mueller is fishing for perjury, and seeking to make it easy for Page and others to fall into that trap. That's also why Sessions has been so dramatically evasive and forgetful that, if true, he isn't qualified, or literally able, to hold any type of job that requires a barely functional memory, much less the responsible job of Attorney General of the United States. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's not a coincidence, BullRangifer. The Russian government had already publicly announced its intention to sell 19.5% of Rosneft in a "privatization" scheme long in advance, and had a deadline to do so by the end of 2016. For a long time, it appeared that no foreign investor was willing to bite due to Western sanctions, and the Russian press reported in October that "Rosneft will buy its own shares for resale." However, as noted by The New York Times, a last minute deal was reached on December 7: "The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its state oil company, Rosneft, to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given Western sanctions against the government of Vladimir V. Putin. ... The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic sign for investor interest in Russia. The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization." It seems likely that any businessman in Russia in the summer of 2016, such as Carter Page, would have discussed this impending Rosneft sale. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Franken vs Tweeden
fyi
[3]
SPECIFICO
talk 17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Contents sectionSandbox for Contents section is at User:BullRangifer/Dossier Contents Feel free to comment and offer help. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Renaming a user account vs creating a new oneHi BullRangifer. I may have asked about this once before... I'm looking at either renaming my account or replacing mine with a new one. I'm wondering if you had some thoughts about choosing one option over the other. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossierI have redacted some of your latest edits to Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier as you apparently copied text in verbatim from the dossier without assertion that the dossier has been published under free compatible license, and because by adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material your edits violated WP:BLP. If you're going to say "fair use", I don't think that will fly when you include about 12 kilobytes of text. I have also asked for an administrator to review your edits and related user subpage, and use revision deletion, if they deem it necessary. Politrukki ( talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is that despite it being an unindexed subpage it still is under the copyright rules of Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA), which means that it could be copied and used elsewhere. Thus, if it's a copyright violation it needs to be removed and revdel'd. It's unfortunate that you've lost the text, and if you like I can email you the content and you can continue working on it off-wiki, but unless there's a discussion that demonstrates the dossier definitely isn't under copyright, then it can't be on here.
Primefac (
talk) 17:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
User subpageThe issue with your user subpage still remains unresolved. Some of the allegations you have outlined are obvious BLP violations, some are clearly not BLP violations (e.g. report #2), and some may or may not contain BLP violations (depends on what the interpretation of "contentious" is). Perhaps you could reliably source some of the allegations, but would that really be worth of your time? I would suggest you copy the contents of your subpage to a local text file and blank all the allegation. Then consider whether you need the "sandbox" at all. Finally, if the answer is "no", you should request speedy deletion per WP:U1. When the user subpage has been deleted, you may use review the local copy of the list. If some allegation is missing from the article, and you think it should be included, you may use the talk page to invite opinions. I find what you wrote on the article talk page If you use the format "According to X1[link #1] and X2[link #2] the dossier alleges that person YY did ZZ" (and links point to respectable publications) or "Should we include the allegations from [link #3] in the article?", you're not violating BLPTALK and nobody should complain. This approach is also more likely to attract attention from your fellow editors than TLDR type of lists. Politrukki ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Joseph C. Keating JrHe was Professor at Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, but didn't ever practice? Rathfelder ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
AccupunctureCategory:Acupuncture is in the Alternative medicine category. The article itself doesn't need to be. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The things vs the Office of the Things.I see you've not only objected to the special counsel investigation's article title, but its usage of common " special counsel". I object to this second objection for the same reason I object to people writing the United States Department of Education promotes Education or the Food and Drug Administration deals in Food and Drugs. I'd revert you, but admittedly, that first move was a bit bold already. So I'll just kindly ask you rethink your policy toward government agencies and the generic things they involve. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossierPlease stop using article talk pages as a forum or MrX will be forced to template you with one of their templates. Politrukki ( talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alertNotice removed for archiving. You broke 1RR with these two edits: [4] [5]. Please self-revert. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your {{ adminhelp}} template on Walsak's talk page. I'd recommend bringing this up at WP:ANI, which is the correct venue for such a discussion—I'm going to remove the template for now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
BullyingList of nicknames used by Donald Trump References
reliable sourcesHow is Breitbart News not wiki:reliable and Salon is? -- 2001:8003:54DA:E600:D058:43DC:2919:5497 ( talk) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this thread, there was a write up I was recently shown dealing with the subject of partisan/POV/Bias sources that might help supplement this discussion WP:YESBIAS. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Offered for your grokkingI respect you and your candor. Due to article talk page restrictions, my position is grossly misinterpreted by all there. Given your last (hatted) offering there, allow me to offer: What I’m stumped by is why much of the Left-Liberal-Progressive camp is carrying water for the MIC. Humanengr ( talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thx very much for that discursive exposition and as part of that, your personal foreign survey; and also for your article talk page comment re Himes. There are some issues I could pursue in isolation here on the former, but think they can all be addressed under the neolib-neocon framing, so I’ll elaborate that a bit more. (We’re of the same age cohort, as I had guessed, and share some perspective; you certainly have more in-depth personal experience with those foreign systems.)
In effect, neolibs promote wealth concentration (and exogenize costs) and neocons support that by appropriating foreign resources, all with palatable rubrics like ‘invisible hand’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’. Does that make sense? (I’m trying to stay focused on my last question: “Which domestic constituencies …?”; so I might need to say a bit more. I’m not meaning to make you ‘guess’, as you said above, but think things generally work better in concise bytes. :) ) Humanengr ( talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I think I can safely add this re your “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it”: Concentration of wealth or, more properly, concentration of access to power — is an avenue as you appropriately noted that is unavailable to the rest of us. The problem is without that access, movements grounded in terms of “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it” are doomed. Humanengr ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, and thx for your identification as “solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah”. I can speak to each of those in the context of the neolib-neocon framing as well. I also appreciate the clarity of your exposition and found myself highlighting key terms in each of your sentences that can be similarly addressed in terms of that framing, But for now, I want to stay focused on the question: Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Or in more elaborate form, what does anyone who has any ostensibly leftist proclivities think they have, are, or will accomplish with this that has not been, is not, and will not be self-defeating to their professed interests, domestically or internationally? Humanengr ( talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I didn’t mean to stump you. On another point, to clarify, does “conservative Constitutionalist” mean you approve the Citizens United decision? Humanengr ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I see them as mixed signals from a fluctuating relationship, and as a reflection of the secret relationship between Trump and Putin, and it's intersection with the public, national, relationship between the two countries, and the two of them "keeping up appearances" as the leaders of somewhat unfriendly countries. Their secret relationship is complex due to many alleged factors in the Trump-Russia relationship going back over at least eight years. I have a long list, but due to BLP concerns won't list them here, though they are all from RS. There are alleged illegal deals made, agreements not fulfilled, crimes covered up, and embarrassment over the conspiracy becoming public. Putin's support for Trump has therefore waxed and waned, including nearly trying to get Trump to drop out of the presidential race. The existence of unfulfilled agreements and public embarrassments creates tension in the relationship. We're seeing that. Publicly they both have to play the game and not get embarrassed in front of their own people. The whole thing makes one sick of politics. It's often dirty business. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do people try to hide Breitbart's right-wing status?I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it? There is a long distance from center to Nazis and KKK. Very few right-wingers go that far. They are are just a bit more extreme right-wing than Breitbart, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad. No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
A question about copyright violation (link to the dossier)Hi, BullRangifer. I see that you deleted a link to the Trump-Russia dossier that was in the "External links" section of the Trump–Russia dossier article. You explained "We can use it as an internal source with secondary sources, but WP:COPYVIOEL forbids its use as an External link due to copyright issues. WE)" BullRangifer, I had read your comment in Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_1#The_document where you said: "I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)" So, you later changed your mind? Mksword ( talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. Are you going to place your draft into main space? To me it looks fine, either as a section of main page on the subject or as an independent page. Speaking about linking, there are two things here, if I understand correctly. (a) On can make links to sites like YouTube, but it is important to make sure that specific link you used did not lead to YouTube record that was a copyright violation. (b) links "to generally avoid" can be used in certain cases, i.e. if they help to improve a page, but there are no better links available. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade CenterThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Nomination of Trump–Russia dossier allegations for deletion![]() The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Atsme 📞 📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Courteous reminder of Civility restrictionsThe AfD for Trump–Russia dossier allegations is subject to DS which includes a Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This was a PA - it was uncivil and unwarranted. Please mind your manners. Atsme 📞 📧 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018![]() If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Welcome backWelcome back to editing, BullRangifer! Your story of real-life harassment sounds horrible; glad it did not discourage you for life. Wikipedia is still worth your energy. Kudos to Coffee for reaching out and hearing your arguments. — JFG talk 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Trump and truthHi BullRangifer. I am not sure why are you collecting all these refs, unless you want to use them to improve the encyclopedia. What that could be? Fact checking of Donald Trump statements? Fake news in the United States (currently an incorrect redirect)? Misinformation by United States politicians? Disinformation in the United States? We have Propaganda in the United States already... My very best wishes ( talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Removing others votesOn List of Trump-Russia dossier allegations you removed the vote of someone else here. I suggest you resort it. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I read your post(s) on my talk page"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." -- BullRangifer I read your posts on my talk page here [9] and here [10] and frankly, your comments are frightening. Please, in the future, if you are trying to help me grow and succeed as an editor, speak more kindly. If you do that, I'll have an easier time believing that you are not trying to bully me. Xerton ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
KesslerGlenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, has analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show: "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." Kessler's " Pinocchio Test" rating was: "[T]here is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes's claim goes off the rails — and why he earns Four Pinocchios." [1] "Four Pinocchios" equals a "Whopper" ( outright lie). [2] There is a Russia investigation without a dossierOn February 3, 2018, Trump praised the Nunes memo and tweeted: "This memo totally vindicates 'Trump' in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their [sic] was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction." Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disagreed, stating on February 4 on CBS’ Face the Nation: "I actually don't think it has any impact on the Russia probe." He went on to say:
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration..." box
ad hominem commentYou recently left a post on my talk page which directly criticized me as a person. Please confine your comments to the efficacy and quality of my edits themselves. If you comment about me as a person, I will delete your comment. Thank you. Xerton ( talk) 11:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Citation templateA basic citation template I like to use.
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
*
Read this Signpost in full *
Single-page *
Unsubscribe *
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Some questionsMelanieN, I have some questions about the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. For some odd reason hardly anyone has tried to edit it, so I haven't gotten any constructive input about alternative ways to format or word things.
I'm so close to the subject that I'm a bit blind to some of this now, and more eyes are needed. I'd like hear your thoughts on the matter. Any other suggestions would be very welcome. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Something slightly different, yet related.... In the section above this one, "Interesting comments", at the bottom of that section, there are some false allegations made against me. She often makes personal attacks against me, like during the AfD, but just does it without using my name. It's still hurtful and unfair, and poisons the well against me. It's subtle character assassination. I have been tempted to seek a topic ban or interaction ban, but all I'd really like to see is for her to just drop it. Do you think there is anything to what she says there? Be honest. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
|
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 21 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
For some odd reason we ignore the alleged cover-up which is in progress. There are plenty of RS which refer to it, even if they may not use that exact term. Denials, lies, "forgetting", then forced admissions, changing stories, blocking of investigations, moving the goalposts, etc, are what's happening. These factors should be mentioned. Here is a part of the cover-up. These are Trump associates who have hidden, lied about, "forgotten", and then been forced to admit their Russian contacts and repeated meetings. Some have even been acting as foreign agents (F), and later had to register. Four (X) have stepped back in one way or another because of these suspicious connections. Several have seen the campaign and administration distance itself from them, with denials of their importance or roles, even denying knowing them. Later the truth has come out.
Lead sentence
References
B4It might be a good idea to change your ivote to B4. I just changed mine. Good edit, btw. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, the only reason I try is to see if we can meet Any... part way. It seems important to them to see the word "majority" in the lead. Here's another attempt, incorporating your thoughts:
BullRangifer ( talk) 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Clapper on evidence of collusionHey Bullrangifer, I got your message on the "latest" Clapper interview. Bottom line he testified under oath in front of congress that NO evidence of collusion existed between Trump and Russia during his tenure. My gripe with your revert was you did it because you don't like what he said. He said it and it was reliably sourced that he said it. If you WAITED until he changed his story somewhat and then deleted my piece you would have made a stronger case. I like your user page and agree 100% on your PRESERVE piece. Let all facts be written and the reader can make up their own mind. I almost never revert a good faith edit. I try to collaborate and make constructive additions/ changes. I wish you would give me the same courtesy and hopefully we can work together in the future to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Aceruss ( talk) 07:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Cover-up investigationThe Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:
References
Trivial contentSometimes an editor will object to content they deem trivial. Does WP:TRIVIA apply, or does it only apply to "trivia sections"? Whether to include such content is an editorial call based on how RS treat the matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS, or is covered by multiple RS, then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinions don't matter. We should mention it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC) How not to create "balance" in an articleAdding unreliable sources to create "balance" is a bad idea for many reasons. Doing so would not "balance" the article. NPOV does not mean a neutered presentation of all views, with an even balance of views from each political POV. NPOV refers to editorial conduct and how editors present biased information from RS. They must preserve the source's existing bias. If an article shows a bias in one direction, it should be that way because that is the dominant bias in RS. That bias must not be changed. Not all opinions are equal, and facts do tend to favor one POV. The article should give more weight to that POV. The problem exposed by such attempts to add "balance" is that reading unreliable sources twists one's thinking, and then we end up with the twisted view affecting editing, giving unreliable sources more weight than reliable ones in a manner which actually promotes falsehood. It would be better for such editors to stop reading unreliable sources. Editors who read unreliable sources without extremely good BS filters cause problems here. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The price is rightThough it has been removed now the quote you put the CN tag was lifted from the source above the text. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Great suggestionsYou're making some great suggestions on the talk page for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, thank you. Got any ideas for more new articles on the topic I can write and create? Sagecandor ( talk) 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Wanted to let you know that I'd retiredThank you for earlier affirming interactions. Always was a great pleasure working with you, creating prompts for your attention and seeing them acted on, etc. You are the best of this place, mate. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 ( talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Thank youThank you, for your clarity, at [1]. Sagecandor ( talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Trump campaign–Russian meeting2nd statement says 20 to 30 minutes for the meeting. Kushner was there about 7 min. Look at the size of the article - and still to this day, it's a nothing burger. With the tarmac incident, there was a flurry of emails going back and forth - DOJ advising MSM what to say based on Talking Points that were prepared. The Phoenix ABC affiliate are the ones that caught it all - told hdqtrs - then ABC's Levin called DOJ tipped off Director Newman, and the panic began. Comey even sold Lynch out at his hearing because of that meeting. It's a big deal...some heads will roll as a result, but the most damage will be to WaPo and NYTimes when they don't need that kind of damage. Wait for it. It's a helluva lot more interesting than Donald Trump's handshake for Pete's sake. I know full well why that article was AfD'd only 2 days after creation - we don't even do that to IPs at NPP. Atsme 📞 📧 04:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Note that I haven't said anything about the merits of the AfD. BTW, it's not uncommon for new articles to be AfDed the same day they are created. I have seen it many times. As far as the relative importance of the two meetings, the tarmac meeting may turn out to be something, although no evidence of wrongdoing has been proven, only the appearance. It was an unwise occurrence, and there is evidence that they tried to do damage control because it could look bad. Evidence of damage control doesn't prove anything really bad happened, but it fuels conspiracy theories. The Trump Tower meeting has great significance as it is the event which cracked open the investigation in a whole new way. It provided the first public evidence that Trump Sr. was pulling the strings and controlling the narrative. That's about public perception. The FBI and CIA have known for some time. They are starting with the low hanging fruit, keeping those higher up in the dark. This way they can get more evidence, flip witnesses, etc. They are giving Trump Sr and others plenty of rope to hang themselves. They act very guilty. By the time Mueller's team gets to the center of the spider web, with Trump Sr. in the middle, he will have been incriminating himself with more lies, coverups, destruction of evidence, etc, and in the end the coverup may be worse than the crime, and enough to convict for obstruction of justice. That's the lesson we have from history. Keep in mind that Al Capone was not convicted of murder, extortion, etc, but of tax evasion. People of power work through others, keeping their hands "clean". They end up going down for other crimes. His decision on Air Force One to override the existing "consensus" decision was fatal. Trump Jr, Kushner, and their advisors and lawyers, had already made a "consensus" decision to issue statements which were transparent and honest, because they knew that the facts would come out. When presented with this decision, Trump Sr. literally "trumped" it, went to the cabin in the plane and dictated a very different statement, one which was deceptive and misleading. That version was published and is now evidence against him. It proves he tried to coverup a damaging meeting, a meeting which wasn't about adoptions, as he said, but about lifting the sanctions, IOW about the Magnitsky Act. (That has been Trump's avowed goal for some time, and the deal described on p. 30 of the dossier and worked out by Carter Page: Trump would get 19% of Rosneft ($11 BILLION) if he (1) became president, and then (2) lifted the sanctions. That way Putin, Trump, and Rex Tillerson (Exxon Mobil) could make a lot of money from blocked oil. The deal has partially been fulfilled: When Trump won the election, Rosneft was partially liquidated and 19.5% (that 0.5% was for fees and probably to pay Page) was transferred, through a series of shell company transactions, to a Cayman Islands account. The deal was signed on December 7, 2016. BTW, if Trump doesn't succeed in lifting the sanctions, he doesn't get that money. Putin will probably just keep it and release the "golden showers" tapes at a convenient time.) That decision to issue a deceptive statement provided evidence to the public that Trump Sr. was not as innocent as he has portrayed himself to be. It also provided a pretext for Mueller to convene another grand jury, using that meeting as the can opener to start their investigations. The meeting had all the types of people in attendance for lots of investigation. There's even a joke about the meeting: "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer & a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender says 'you guys must be here for the adoptions'." The investigation can, if necessary, examine every single aspect of the lives of all those unsavory characters, and for some odd reason, Trump Sr. is at the center connecting them all. Placing all those people in the same room at the same time was like dropping a golden apple into Mueller's hand. They did not gather in Trump Tower to discuss adoptions for 20-30 minutes. Don't believe that for a minute. They are all big players with very big fish to fry. I suspect that some day we'll learn that Donald Sr. was at the meeting. He left another meeting and went to Trump Tower and was in the building at the time. If he was not in the meeting, why would Lewandowski lie about Trump's location at the time? Don't deprecate the importance of the Trump Tower meeting. Small things can end up having great significance. Just sayin' -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject ChiropracticHi! I've noticed your early edits on chiro-related pages, and from your user page can tell you're still interested in editing chiropractic articles. I recently started up a WikiProject on the topic and was wondering if you'd be interested in adding your name to the list and offering some ideas for the improvement of all chiro articles on the site. From the looks of it we have no GA or FA articles, and after all related pages are added to the project the first goal will be to reduce the number of stubs and start tackling some of the more rampant bias seen on a few specific articles. If you're interested, you can find the project here: WP:CHIRO. It's still in draft form, until more people sign on! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 04:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Danney Williams (September 27)![]()
Editing BLP materialI have redacted BLP violations from your comment. Please remember that BLP applies to all material in English Wikipedia, including talk pages. And please don't use Wikipedia as your soapbox. Politrukki ( talk) 23:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Politrukki, you're being very selective. The next words come pretty close to confirming that the 19% allegation could very well be true, without directly admitting it, although the last words grudgingly come pretty close:
As the sources I have provided above show, the 19% figure mentioned in the dossier became an actual transaction, ending up in that Cayman Islands account. (I'm sure that was just a coincidence....
I understand you don't want to see anything that might indicate that Trump and Page are trying to hide something, and are not being completely honest. Well, the many parts you leave out sure sound suspiciously like a hostile witness trying not to admit wrongdoing, but while also trying to not say anything which could later be interpreted as perjury, IOW not complete denials that something "might" have happened. He leaves the door open because he suspects (because he knows what happened and that the evidence likely exists somewhere) that Mueller, Steele, the CIA, FBI, MI6, French, Dutch, German, and other intelligence agencies actually have conclusive proof, maybe even recordings, which confirm without a doubt that he said what the dossier says he said. He knows that Mueller is fishing for perjury, and seeking to make it easy for Page and others to fall into that trap. That's also why Sessions has been so dramatically evasive and forgetful that, if true, he isn't qualified, or literally able, to hold any type of job that requires a barely functional memory, much less the responsible job of Attorney General of the United States. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's not a coincidence, BullRangifer. The Russian government had already publicly announced its intention to sell 19.5% of Rosneft in a "privatization" scheme long in advance, and had a deadline to do so by the end of 2016. For a long time, it appeared that no foreign investor was willing to bite due to Western sanctions, and the Russian press reported in October that "Rosneft will buy its own shares for resale." However, as noted by The New York Times, a last minute deal was reached on December 7: "The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its state oil company, Rosneft, to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar. The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given Western sanctions against the government of Vladimir V. Putin. ... The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic sign for investor interest in Russia. The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization." It seems likely that any businessman in Russia in the summer of 2016, such as Carter Page, would have discussed this impending Rosneft sale. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Franken vs Tweeden
fyi
[3]
SPECIFICO
talk 17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Contents sectionSandbox for Contents section is at User:BullRangifer/Dossier Contents Feel free to comment and offer help. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 07:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Renaming a user account vs creating a new oneHi BullRangifer. I may have asked about this once before... I'm looking at either renaming my account or replacing mine with a new one. I'm wondering if you had some thoughts about choosing one option over the other. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossierI have redacted some of your latest edits to Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier as you apparently copied text in verbatim from the dossier without assertion that the dossier has been published under free compatible license, and because by adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material your edits violated WP:BLP. If you're going to say "fair use", I don't think that will fly when you include about 12 kilobytes of text. I have also asked for an administrator to review your edits and related user subpage, and use revision deletion, if they deem it necessary. Politrukki ( talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is that despite it being an unindexed subpage it still is under the copyright rules of Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA), which means that it could be copied and used elsewhere. Thus, if it's a copyright violation it needs to be removed and revdel'd. It's unfortunate that you've lost the text, and if you like I can email you the content and you can continue working on it off-wiki, but unless there's a discussion that demonstrates the dossier definitely isn't under copyright, then it can't be on here.
Primefac (
talk) 17:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
User subpageThe issue with your user subpage still remains unresolved. Some of the allegations you have outlined are obvious BLP violations, some are clearly not BLP violations (e.g. report #2), and some may or may not contain BLP violations (depends on what the interpretation of "contentious" is). Perhaps you could reliably source some of the allegations, but would that really be worth of your time? I would suggest you copy the contents of your subpage to a local text file and blank all the allegation. Then consider whether you need the "sandbox" at all. Finally, if the answer is "no", you should request speedy deletion per WP:U1. When the user subpage has been deleted, you may use review the local copy of the list. If some allegation is missing from the article, and you think it should be included, you may use the talk page to invite opinions. I find what you wrote on the article talk page If you use the format "According to X1[link #1] and X2[link #2] the dossier alleges that person YY did ZZ" (and links point to respectable publications) or "Should we include the allegations from [link #3] in the article?", you're not violating BLPTALK and nobody should complain. This approach is also more likely to attract attention from your fellow editors than TLDR type of lists. Politrukki ( talk) 14:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Joseph C. Keating JrHe was Professor at Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, but didn't ever practice? Rathfelder ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
AccupunctureCategory:Acupuncture is in the Alternative medicine category. The article itself doesn't need to be. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The things vs the Office of the Things.I see you've not only objected to the special counsel investigation's article title, but its usage of common " special counsel". I object to this second objection for the same reason I object to people writing the United States Department of Education promotes Education or the Food and Drug Administration deals in Food and Drugs. I'd revert you, but admittedly, that first move was a bit bold already. So I'll just kindly ask you rethink your policy toward government agencies and the generic things they involve. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossierPlease stop using article talk pages as a forum or MrX will be forced to template you with one of their templates. Politrukki ( talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alertNotice removed for archiving. You broke 1RR with these two edits: [4] [5]. Please self-revert. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw your {{ adminhelp}} template on Walsak's talk page. I'd recommend bringing this up at WP:ANI, which is the correct venue for such a discussion—I'm going to remove the template for now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
BullyingList of nicknames used by Donald Trump References
reliable sourcesHow is Breitbart News not wiki:reliable and Salon is? -- 2001:8003:54DA:E600:D058:43DC:2919:5497 ( talk) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this thread, there was a write up I was recently shown dealing with the subject of partisan/POV/Bias sources that might help supplement this discussion WP:YESBIAS. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Offered for your grokkingI respect you and your candor. Due to article talk page restrictions, my position is grossly misinterpreted by all there. Given your last (hatted) offering there, allow me to offer: What I’m stumped by is why much of the Left-Liberal-Progressive camp is carrying water for the MIC. Humanengr ( talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thx very much for that discursive exposition and as part of that, your personal foreign survey; and also for your article talk page comment re Himes. There are some issues I could pursue in isolation here on the former, but think they can all be addressed under the neolib-neocon framing, so I’ll elaborate that a bit more. (We’re of the same age cohort, as I had guessed, and share some perspective; you certainly have more in-depth personal experience with those foreign systems.)
In effect, neolibs promote wealth concentration (and exogenize costs) and neocons support that by appropriating foreign resources, all with palatable rubrics like ‘invisible hand’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’. Does that make sense? (I’m trying to stay focused on my last question: “Which domestic constituencies …?”; so I might need to say a bit more. I’m not meaning to make you ‘guess’, as you said above, but think things generally work better in concise bytes. :) ) Humanengr ( talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC) I think I can safely add this re your “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it”: Concentration of wealth or, more properly, concentration of access to power — is an avenue as you appropriately noted that is unavailable to the rest of us. The problem is without that access, movements grounded in terms of “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it” are doomed. Humanengr ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, and thx for your identification as “solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah”. I can speak to each of those in the context of the neolib-neocon framing as well. I also appreciate the clarity of your exposition and found myself highlighting key terms in each of your sentences that can be similarly addressed in terms of that framing, But for now, I want to stay focused on the question: Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Or in more elaborate form, what does anyone who has any ostensibly leftist proclivities think they have, are, or will accomplish with this that has not been, is not, and will not be self-defeating to their professed interests, domestically or internationally? Humanengr ( talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I didn’t mean to stump you. On another point, to clarify, does “conservative Constitutionalist” mean you approve the Citizens United decision? Humanengr ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I see them as mixed signals from a fluctuating relationship, and as a reflection of the secret relationship between Trump and Putin, and it's intersection with the public, national, relationship between the two countries, and the two of them "keeping up appearances" as the leaders of somewhat unfriendly countries. Their secret relationship is complex due to many alleged factors in the Trump-Russia relationship going back over at least eight years. I have a long list, but due to BLP concerns won't list them here, though they are all from RS. There are alleged illegal deals made, agreements not fulfilled, crimes covered up, and embarrassment over the conspiracy becoming public. Putin's support for Trump has therefore waxed and waned, including nearly trying to get Trump to drop out of the presidential race. The existence of unfulfilled agreements and public embarrassments creates tension in the relationship. We're seeing that. Publicly they both have to play the game and not get embarrassed in front of their own people. The whole thing makes one sick of politics. It's often dirty business. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do people try to hide Breitbart's right-wing status?I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it? There is a long distance from center to Nazis and KKK. Very few right-wingers go that far. They are are just a bit more extreme right-wing than Breitbart, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad. No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
A question about copyright violation (link to the dossier)Hi, BullRangifer. I see that you deleted a link to the Trump-Russia dossier that was in the "External links" section of the Trump–Russia dossier article. You explained "We can use it as an internal source with secondary sources, but WP:COPYVIOEL forbids its use as an External link due to copyright issues. WE)" BullRangifer, I had read your comment in Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_1#The_document where you said: "I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)" So, you later changed your mind? Mksword ( talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. Are you going to place your draft into main space? To me it looks fine, either as a section of main page on the subject or as an independent page. Speaking about linking, there are two things here, if I understand correctly. (a) On can make links to sites like YouTube, but it is important to make sure that specific link you used did not lead to YouTube record that was a copyright violation. (b) links "to generally avoid" can be used in certain cases, i.e. if they help to improve a page, but there are no better links available. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade CenterThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Nomination of Trump–Russia dossier allegations for deletion![]() The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Atsme 📞 📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Courteous reminder of Civility restrictionsThe AfD for Trump–Russia dossier allegations is subject to DS which includes a Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This was a PA - it was uncivil and unwarranted. Please mind your manners. Atsme 📞 📧 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018![]() If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Welcome backWelcome back to editing, BullRangifer! Your story of real-life harassment sounds horrible; glad it did not discourage you for life. Wikipedia is still worth your energy. Kudos to Coffee for reaching out and hearing your arguments. — JFG talk 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Trump and truthHi BullRangifer. I am not sure why are you collecting all these refs, unless you want to use them to improve the encyclopedia. What that could be? Fact checking of Donald Trump statements? Fake news in the United States (currently an incorrect redirect)? Misinformation by United States politicians? Disinformation in the United States? We have Propaganda in the United States already... My very best wishes ( talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Removing others votesOn List of Trump-Russia dossier allegations you removed the vote of someone else here. I suggest you resort it. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I read your post(s) on my talk page"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." -- BullRangifer I read your posts on my talk page here [9] and here [10] and frankly, your comments are frightening. Please, in the future, if you are trying to help me grow and succeed as an editor, speak more kindly. If you do that, I'll have an easier time believing that you are not trying to bully me. Xerton ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
KesslerGlenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, has analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show: "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." Kessler's " Pinocchio Test" rating was: "[T]here is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes's claim goes off the rails — and why he earns Four Pinocchios." [1] "Four Pinocchios" equals a "Whopper" ( outright lie). [2] There is a Russia investigation without a dossierOn February 3, 2018, Trump praised the Nunes memo and tweeted: "This memo totally vindicates 'Trump' in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their [sic] was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction." Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disagreed, stating on February 4 on CBS’ Face the Nation: "I actually don't think it has any impact on the Russia probe." He went on to say:
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration..." box
ad hominem commentYou recently left a post on my talk page which directly criticized me as a person. Please confine your comments to the efficacy and quality of my edits themselves. If you comment about me as a person, I will delete your comment. Thank you. Xerton ( talk) 11:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Citation templateA basic citation template I like to use.
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
*
Read this Signpost in full *
Single-page *
Unsubscribe *
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Some questionsMelanieN, I have some questions about the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. For some odd reason hardly anyone has tried to edit it, so I haven't gotten any constructive input about alternative ways to format or word things.
I'm so close to the subject that I'm a bit blind to some of this now, and more eyes are needed. I'd like hear your thoughts on the matter. Any other suggestions would be very welcome. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Something slightly different, yet related.... In the section above this one, "Interesting comments", at the bottom of that section, there are some false allegations made against me. She often makes personal attacks against me, like during the AfD, but just does it without using my name. It's still hurtful and unfair, and poisons the well against me. It's subtle character assassination. I have been tempted to seek a topic ban or interaction ban, but all I'd really like to see is for her to just drop it. Do you think there is anything to what she says there? Be honest. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
|