This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Archive 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion at Talk:Sharyl AttkissonYou are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#About the request to extend full protection by one month. You are encouraged to share your thoughts at the above talkpage discussion, within the next 24 hours, before administrator El C renders his decision on whether to extend the full page protection for Sharyl Attkisson and for how long. Doug Mehus T· C 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Test of spacings around headingsWikipedia's default spacings around headings are:
== Heading ==
Changes to these do not affect the appearance of the final product, but the default spacings make editing easier(*) for editors with older eyes, so please use the default spacings. (*) When quickly scanning the page while in the editing window, the blank line separations jump right out and help one easily and quickly find section headings. To prove how the default spacings work, just try to edit this section and see how it looks. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 18:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
COI at Quackwatch?Notice of COI/N discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Quotes should not be touchedahem 8r' -- 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Carry onePlease look again. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yulya Alferova 2014 support for TrumpThe Russians knew long before Americans. Here is a tweet by Yulya Alferova, expressing her support for Trump's candidacy. It was from 2014. Trump had been in Moscow in November 2013: Here's a Twitter thread about the matter. Seth is worth following. He's an excellent investigative reporter: Others have noted how the Russians knew about Trump's upcoming candidacy long before he announced it in 2015: https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion-blogs/opinion-here-curious-thing/m14AxcrUgHZNmB6y6kA6SO/
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Sale of 19.5% stake of RosneftThe dossier alleged on October 18, 2016, that Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] About a month after Trump won the election, according to The Guardian, Carter Page traveled to Moscow "shortly before the company announced it was selling a 19.5% stake" in Rosneft. He met with top Russian officials at Rosneft, but denied meeting Sechin. He also complained about the effects of the sanctions against Russia. [6] On December 7, 2016, Putin announced that a 19.5% stake in Rosneft was sold to Glencore and a Qatar fund. Public records showed the ultimate owner included "a Cayman Islands company whose beneficial owners cannot be traced", with "the main question" being "Who is the real buyer of a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft?. ... the Rosneft privatization uses a structure of shell companies owning shell companies." [7] [8] [9] Martin Longman, writing for Washington Monthly, found Steele's prediction of the privatisation of 19% of Rosneft "tantalizing" and "intriguing", and went on to write: "Either that number was floated somewhere in the press or that's a remarkable coincidence or the intelligence was good and the promise was kept." [10] Luke Harding has described the setting of this offer of a 19% stake in Rosneft. It involved an "unusual bribe", a "carrot", a "stick", and "blackmail". Sechin and Divyekin were allegedly using a financial bribe in a classic carrot and stick scheme. The carrot was the financial bribe: "Any brokerage fee would be substantial, in the region of tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars." [11] It also involved a stick, the stick being blackmail of Trump: "Diveykin also delivered an ominous warning. He hinted—or even 'indicated more strongly'—that the Russian leadership had damaging material on Trump, too. Trump 'should bear this in mind' in his dealings with Moscow, Diveykin said. This was blackmail, clear and simple." [11]
Steele pageInteresting idea. Not quite sure how to integrate this but it certainly has merit as we move to a point where the usual excuses will be trotted out again. Guy ( help!) 13:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Do you have Simpson and Fritsch's "Crime In Progress"? Very good. Guy ( help!) 20:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Eichenwald
The dossier alleges that "there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office." [1] (Dossier, p. 14) Kurt Eichenwald confirmed that this happened: "Trump's behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race." [2]
The dossier alleges that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague and met with Russian officials at Rossotrudnichestvo headquarters. While it has not been proven that Cohen did this, something similar did happen:
Kurt Eichenwald reported that something similar happened: "Western intelligence has also obtained reports that a Trump associate met with a pro-Putin member of Russian parliament at a building in Eastern Europe maintained by Rossotrudnichestvo, an agency under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that is charged with administering language, education and support programs for civilians." [2] Please comment on Talk:Sharyl AttkissonThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC) GubarevHis denials proven false, due to evidence found during the discovery process in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others. [3] [4] [5] BLP violations?JFG, thanks for the ping when you deleted my comment. Let's talk about it here. If I supplied the RS which make the case, would that solve the problem? RS describe both of them as boasters who exaggerate their own importance. Millian claims to have been present for the "golden showers" incident. Page has lied and lied until forced to tell the truth under oath, and even then he's probably not telling the full truth. They had to draw it out of him a little bit at a time. Are you in doubt about what I said, or is this purely a BLP "unsourced controversial statement" issue? If it's only the latter, then I commend you for your deletion. Otherwise, the claims can be sourced, and I'll just do it here, for your benefit, as I see no need to restore the comment on the article talk page. The dossier alleges that Source D (Millian) claimed to have been "present" for Trump's alleged "perverted conduct in Moscow". [6] Glenn Simpson doubts Millian's claim, [7] and so do I. I have never seen any evidence that Millian was even with Trump at the Miss Universe pageant in 2013, and Trump's bodyguard makes no mention of Millian when he describes escorting Trump to the Presidential Suite at the Ritz-Carlton and then leaving him alone there. Nothing at all. Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's not entirely impossible that one of the Agalarov's (who had offered the girls to Trump) had Millian escort the girls to Trump's room later in the night, but I highly doubt it. The existing video shows two girls on the bed, one laying down and the other peeing while she's standing, and they are not peeing on Trump. He appears to be pointing and directing them what to do, while also poking at his cell phone, both gestures we have seen many times. The room matches the Presidential Suite exactly. If it's a fake, it's very well done. What's rather amusing about this is that no one on earth, not even Melania, can honestly deny that this isn't something he would do. It's entirely in character, and he lied several times about it. Why lie about it if you're innocent? Sergei Millian (Siarhei Kukuts) is a Belarusian-born American citizen, with close ties to the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, has been identified as both sources D and E, unwitting (and thus a hostile witness) sources mentioned in the Trump–Russia dossier. He never intended his confidential discussions to be repeated to Steele, but that's what happened. [8] [7] [9] [10] ABC News reported that a version of the dossier "provided to the FBI included Millian's name as a source". [11] Here is just one of the sources which describe some of Millian's claims (outside the dossier) as boasting. [10] Here's one for Carter Page. [12] Court testimony shows Page had been lying when he repeatedly denied meeting Russian officials during his 2016 visit to Moscow and Rosneft. While it is still unproven that he actually met with Sechin at that time (he has met him at other times), he did admit to meeting with Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft. That makes sense because the allegations are about matters which would be in Baranov's area of responsibility. Page was "compelled to admit" that fact, [13] and we know that hostile witnesses only admit the truth in little bits, and often never reveal the full truth. Some RS consider his admissions as confirmation about the general veracity of the dossier's allegation, even if a name is wrong. The main facts are that (1) such meetings actually did happen, and (2) he had repeatedly lied about it. The same principle applies to the dossier's allegation that there existed a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." While the "conspiracy" was never proven, the actual "co-operation" was proven with boatloads of evidence. So it was unproven that a "formal agreement" existed, but what is alleged to have actually happened really did happen, and that is really the most important thing. Trump supporters stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. Page is alleged to have met at least two different people at Rosneft in two different meetings. Only one meeting has been dealt with (Baranov). The other meeting is ignored, and it's this one where he allegedly met Sechin. There are a lot of unproven things going on, and we may never get the full truth. He is an untrustworthy hostile witness whose statements to the IG cannot be taken at face value. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
"NPOV is inviolable"
Google TrendsHey in response to this I thought I would reply on your talk page instead of the article talk. I have not used it very often but for example here it is comparing just the search term. When you click on the term at the top a drop down should appear and you can select search term or topic. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Moving my comments
Fourteen years of editing!
Russian state media called Trump their "Agent"X1\ ( talk) 01:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
OnetwothreeipI previously said this in Corker1's user talk, but I'll say it here as well: I feel strongly that this user needs to be reported for his pattern of creating problems, most recently on the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War article, where he's just turned approximately half of the article's references into citation errors. Even if I assume good faith about his editing, which is quite difficult in some cases, this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Competence is required. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 ( talk) 07:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
While I do Second That Emotion in regards to that particular issue...Hi BullRangifer. In this post on teh dramaboard you linked a YouTube video that was most likely uploaded without without permission from its copyright holders. Please see the blah, blah, blah. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
RE: Ukraine-Trump scandal RFCHi, you have posted a message on my talk page: "Yes, that is the purpose, but those opinions should be backed by RS, not fringe opinions found in unreliable sources. Pushing such opinions on talk pages is forbidden advocacy of fringe opinions. -" Again, I have not stated any opinion, let alone "pushed a fringe opinion" in my response to the RFC. I have not only merely stated my opinion why the proposal should be supported, based on the Wiki guides, I have specifically pointed out in my support arguments, that personal opinions on the truthfulness of underlying actor should not be taken into account in making the decision on allowing the lede inclusion or not. It seems that, just by the mere fact that I am in favor of the proposal, you are infering substantial motive to my support, nothwithstanding completely unsubstantiated. Milanbishop ( talk) 12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC) ANIThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC) AEThere is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement -- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionThis message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Curivity ( talk) 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC) WarningPer the closed WP:AE report at permalink, you are warned that you must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC) The Apprentice: Trump, Russia and the Subversion...
Questions about sourced criticismsThis section is for Curivity when they get off their current block. There are two issues.
Who has used "bias" as a reason for rejecting a source? Extreme bias can affect the reliability of a source, and then it gets rejected, but it is the unreliability that is the real reason, although the extreme bias is certainly related to that. So who has done it? Please proved a quote. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Properly-sourced criticisms from RS must be allowed in all articles. Period. If left- and right-wing sources were equal, there would normally be such content in both articles, but those sources are not equal. Maybe that's the explanation for the difference. Compared to left-wing sources, there are percentage-wise far fewer right-wing sources which are RS, and far more right-wing sources that are unreliable, and therefore deprecated and blacklisted. What happens at one article is irrelevant to what happens at another article, per WP:OTHERTHINGS. Do we look at such things? Yes, we don't completely ignore that if it is problematic. If left- and right-wing sources were equal, then such a difference could be explained by editorial bias, and that would be a violation of NPOV, but they are not equal. With few exceptions, they are on totally different playing fields and operate using different ethical and journalistic standards. There are some basic factors with sources you need to understand. At this time in history (and it's not always this way), left-wing sources tend to be more accurate, even some of the more biased ones. Here are several explanatory factors which have to do with the tendencies (there are exceptions) of the left-wing audience and their sources, compared to right-wingers: higher educational levels, younger age, better critical thinking skills, rejection of conspiracy theories and fake news, dependence on fact-checkers, get information from a wider variety of sources, skepticism of Trump and his sycophants who generally spew lies and literal Russian disinformation all the time, progressives tend to change their minds easier than conservatives, etc. Right-wingers tend to live in right-wing filter bubbles of misinformation fed by sources that serve an extreme and counterfactual agenda more than they search for truth, and this problem has grown exponentially because of Trump's alliance with Russian disinformation and rejection of good news sources, which he calls "fake news". He believes Putin over his own media and intelligence agencies. Think about that. Left-wingers tend to use so many sources, and the sources have higher journalistic standards, that they don't usually get trapped in left-wing filter bubbles. Left-wing sources call each other out if they are inaccurate, and they self-correct, but right-wing sources don't do that as often. Here are some choice quotes:
To sum this up:
BullRangifer ( talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Uniform reference formattingWebsurfer2 and Soibangla, as two of the most prolific adders of RS to our AP2 articles, I respect your hard work very much, so I'd like to pick your brains! As you have probably noticed, I have established a single, uniform, reference formatting style for the Steele dossier article, but my reference-formatting habits aren't informed by a whole lot of research or shared knowledge, and I'd like to learn from both of you. I hope that we can end up agreeing on a uniform formatting method to harmonize our work, so I have a few questions for you: 1. What tools do you use? 2. What citation format(s) do you like? 3. Do you attempt to make sure that a reference isn't already in use? 4. Do you use the same references across different articles? 5. Do you always name a reference? 6. What guidelines, websites, or charts do you use as guides for whether a source is generally reliable or not? 7. Other information.... BullRangifer ( talk) 02:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1. What tools do you use?
2. What citation format(s) do you like?
3. Do you attempt to make sure that a reference isn't already in use?
4. Do you use the same references across different articles?
5. Do you always name a reference?
6. What guidelines, websites, or charts do you use as guides for whether a source is generally reliable or not?
7. Other information....BLP violations in talk page commentsGreetings BullRangifer. We haven't talked in a while, and I wish you a nice happy new decade. I was perusing the recent discussions at Talk:Steele dossier, and came upon this remark you made:
(emphasis mine) That's three BLP violations in just one sentence. We may excuse you for repeating the widely-reported claim that Putin kills journalists for sport, but you are also saying that both Trump and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) were in cahoots to liquidate Jamal Khashoggi. That's an unfounded criminal aspersion on both Trump and MBS. You do mention that this was "[your] speculation based on what we do know", but that does not excuse the BLPVIO aspect. I would recommend striking this sentence, and watching your tongue (or fingers) going forward. — JFG talk 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing restrictions ... for Tulsi Gabbard article?Suggestions for editing restrictions beyond 1RR for Tulsi Gabbard article? Hi BullRangifer. I thought you might have some suggestions on editing restrictions for Tulsi Gabbard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I tend to avoid such political articles, so am not familiar with how they are managed. I see you regularly working on them, so thought you might have some suggestions. Thank you in advance. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Network Propaganda... in American PoliticsThis is an excellent RS and resource:
Search that page for various websites and sources. Try Fox. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) courtesy notificationPer your previous "Agree" comment, I am giving notice I have changed the title to avoid parenthesis at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Requested move 14 January 2020. X1\ ( talk) 00:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Hopefully this doesn't bring back bad memories, but this may be of 2018 (Carr Fire) interest
Update template
Would like moreHello I would like to add more articles about the scandal that you had posted on. Thanks can you please help create additional articles?I don't want the users especially User:WikipediaUser or the public to see many red names on the navbox. thanks... Personisgaming ( talk) 03:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, here's how to get started. You can work on it in a text program like Word, or you can also work on it here:
Feel free to contact me along the way, and I'll give you advice. Whatever you do, work quietly "behind the scenes" and don't violate BLP by making unsourced negative allegations. Use only reliable sources. Also, don't violate WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Don't try to "go public" with your article too early. No matter when you do it, expect that someone will try to get it deleted, so don't give them any excuses by publishing an article with flaws or too few RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 January 2020
A kitten for you!Thanks for your thorough and civil explanation on the MMR vaccine and autism page regarding why we will not include false balance of pseudoscience. JoelWhy?( talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Trigenics for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Trigenics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be
deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigenics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. The Anome ( talk) 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – February 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
BLP warningHello, I'm 63.155.63.122. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Viktor Shokin, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Viktor_Shokin&diff=939069026&oldid=939029192 You are stating allegations of bribery from the friends of an oligarch as if they are a fact. This is a BLP violation. 63.155.63.122 ( talk) 02:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Stalking- Final WarningI have suspected that you have been stalking me in recent weeks. Now, it has become 100% clear to me that you are. Every time I edit a page or make a comment somewhere, you show up shortly thereafter (and I can easily provide diffs of this). Consider this your final warning. I have tried to avoid you for months so there would not be any conflict, but you've made that impossible. I do not care how many admin friends you have, follow me around just one more time and I will bring you to a noticeboard once again.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisonsHi BullRangifer, I was going to post this in response to your comment about Nineteen Eighty-Four, but that probably would have crossed into WP:NOTFORUM territory, so I'll share it here instead. I think this poem, " September 1, 1939" is a far more apt comparison for this day and age. It's probably the third or fourth most important poem of the 20th Century (up there with "Easter, 1916", "In Memory of Y.B. Yeats" and "The Second Coming"). In fact, with a few tweaks, you could probably call it " January 20, 2017" without noticing much difference. These are probably the most relevant parts:
[Change "Luther" to "Washington" and "Linz" to "Queens".]
And then there's this part from later in the poem:
Every time I see one of Trump's rallies, I immediately think of the lines "The windiest militant trash / Important Persons shout" and "Not universal love / But to be loved alone". Fortunately, the poem ends on a much more hopeful note. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 05:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to wonder what his endgame is. He's already alluded to a third term in some of his rallies—it was months, if not years ago, but he telegraphs his moves well in advance. But there doesn't seem to be any objective. Whatever agenda he had seemed to stall around the election of Emmanuel Macron. Until then, there was a resurgence in right-wing populism: Trump, Brexit and a few elections in Europe. Marine Le Pen looked like she waa going to be next, but she was thoroughly rejected at the ballot box. Then Merkel won re-election in Germany and that wave of right-wing populism stalled. Trump seems to have been spinning his wheels ever since. He obviously needs the adoration of millions to satiate his ego, so is it just as simple as wanting to go down as America's "best" president with the "best" vision of what the country should be? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
New York PostIn your edit summary here, you declare that the New York Post "is not a RS." However, as I read Wikipedia's guidance, there is (a) no consensus regarding the Post′s reliability, and (b) it has not been deprecated. Doesn't that mean it may be cited? NedFausa ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Article size limits and citation templatesMandruss wrote that the "technical limit" is about "post-expand include size":
Since the details of the discussion were distracting at Talk:Donald Trump, I'd like to pursue this here. Since I'm not technical, if there is any merit to my ideas, I need to be able to pursue this further at the Village pump in an intelligent manner by not starting off as a total ignoramus who assumes the wrong things and asks the wrong questions. That's a recipe for failure. My idea is to examine the idea of not using reference citation templates anymore and just using the same content, in the same format, but as pure text, without any template. That should solve a large part of the problem with the technical limits for article size, which is a problem with the Donald Trump article, among other large articles that are extensively sourced. I'm copying a few comments here to seed the discussion, thus pinging the editors who seem to know much more about this than I do. (Adding Davidwr) Here's the discussion so far: Since several discussions above are about "size", and citation templates seem to be a big factor, shouldn't we propose dropping them, but keeping the same format? Here's an example:
The appearance and content are the same. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion would only work if it was (1) adopted site wide, and (2) automated. Since it is templates (and we use lots of citation templates) that causes problems, not just size in raw bytes, I thought the idea might be worth consideration. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
RfC on 2A Sanctuary articlePlease consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. -- Mox La Push ( talk) 08:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) SourcesI don't use sites like Vox for contentious claims about living people. The Page stuff, if it's genuinely significant, would have been covered by someone like WaPo. And if it wasn't (spoiler: I am pretty sure it was), it's likely WP:UNDUE. Especially in the current climate, with Trumpists trying to wave away all evidence of Russian interference in 2016 or 2020 and promote the deep state conspiracy theory in its place. Guy ( help!) 16:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
Sorry for bothering you, but...
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
"Some would say..."It feels like yesterday that you were specifically warned against speculating about the competence of other users. I'm looking at this diff where you say "Any editor who favors misinformation from unreliable sources and denies RS should not edit in the relevant areas, and some would say they lack the skills to edit here at all, at least on controversial topics." Please retract that and stop harping on the competence thing. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen these stories yet?Hello, and hope all is well with you. Have you seen these stories yet? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html It's interesting to me to see both sides (the US Gov't and the Concord attorneys) take on why they are dropping it. I guess we may have a few pages to update. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Belated wishesHello V. I saw that your name change was a birthday request so I want to wish you a Happy Birthday a month late :) MarnetteD| Talk 16:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Username change from BullRangifer to Valjean.
On 14:30, March 23, 2020, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean. I have desired a username change for some time, and after some waiting it has finally happened. Jean Valjean is the hero of Les Misérables, my favorite book, which I have read in several languages. His just character is worthy of much admiration and emulation. I'm also a fan of the 1980 musical. I also considered a username associated with Atticus Finch, another hero of mine, but Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean were already taken. Valjean was available, so I chose that one. I know that this is offensive to some very religious people, but if I had to choose a book to give someone, and I had to choose between the Bible and Les Misérables, I'd give them Les Misérables. The principles of honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, kindness, selflessness, simplicity, heroism, and social justice found in the Bible are portrayed in a much clearer manner in Les Misérables. Jean Valjean was completely transformed from a hardened criminal into a virtuous man by the kindness and grace of Bishop Myriel. After his fateful meeting with Myriel, Valjean modeled his own life after the character of Myriel. We all need heroes, and they should be chosen wisely. I used to own the book, CDs, and DVDs of the movie and musical in several languages. I even found an ancient 12-volume leather-bound set of Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Copenhagen, a great city for old books and cultural events, where we also saw the musical in the round Østre Gasværk Teater, with its revolving stage. A great experience. My wife and I especially loved the 2019, six-part Masterpiece Theatre adaptation from PBS: " Dominic West stars as fugitive Jean Valjean, with David Oyelowo as his pursuer Inspector Javert and Lily Collins as the luckless single mother Fantine. Love, death, and the struggle for social justice in early 19th-century France feature in this beautifully faithful retelling of one of the world's most beloved stories." [11] I especially loved the DVDs for the 10th Anniversary "Dream Cast" concert at the Royal Albert Hall and the 25th Anniversary concert in The O2 Arena, but lost them, along with everything else, in the 2018 Camp Fire. After the fire, my dear daughter, who knew how much that book meant to me, gifted me a nice copy of the book. A home without any books is a sad place, so that book started my now-limited and budding collection of favorite books. All my medical textbooks, in at least five languages, are gone. I have no plans for resuming any large-scale collecting of books. I used to lug over forty, very heavy, banana boxes of books around the world whenever we moved. No more of that! -- Valjean ( talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know
User:SD0001/unreliable.js a test version of my script (
Jimmy Carter says Trump lost the election
Preciousflora and fauna of Greenland Thank you for quality articles such as Spinal disc herniation, Charlotte's web (cannabis), Flora and fauna of Greenland, Vis medicatrix naturae, in service from 2005, for encouragement, for changing your username to your hero, for "Let freedom ring!" - you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2368 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Cool name change!Just wanted to say hi, again. (Also, User:Javert is never going to be allowed, will it?) — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Anon IPDon't worry about the IP posting "threats". It appears to be an unfortunately quite unwell person. Congrats on name change, at least this one I am sure how to pronounce! Koncorde ( talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Misinformation about the virusHello there 👋 you’ve removed the following from “Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic” page, citing a lack of RW? What does that mean? Thanks The Chinese government officials initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human. The WHO has cited this information in the following Twitter post from January 14th, 2020: ″Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China″ Berehinia (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Berehinia ( talk) 05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask you to what this acronym stands forSorry to bother you on your talk page but I got a question thats been bugging me. What does RS stand for? At first I thought you meant RT ( Russia Today), but of course their his biggest supporters in the media, so it couldn't be that obviously based what your saying it implies. I tried googling RS + Wikileaks as well but I didn't see anything that seemed relevant. I'm sure its something really basic though, that I should have instantly got, and I'm gonna feel really dumb for not realizing thats what you meant. -- Kwwhit5531 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
My edit was reverted but I don't think it should have been. I did not alter the content of the article and I made a post on the talk page beforehand (although not long before). The introduction was difficult to read as it was and said the same thing over and over citing different sources. I will make add more on the talk page beforehand and wait another day to see if there are any responses on the talk page before I fix the section again. Jlf3756 ( talk) 03:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
PA at CH articleI don't want to take you to a administrator. But I have now asked you to strike your PAs about me twice, and both times you struck your previous attack just to add another one. So final request: please strike your most recent attack on me without further comment about me, and let's focus on content. I'm here in good faith, I'm following BRD, and I'm open to discussion. I only want to improve the article. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Your name changeI just became aware of your name change when pinging you at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. And now I see the page notice above as I type this. I am sorry that you and your family were harassed. I didn't know. I also don't know if changing your username has to do with that. Feel free to remove this section from your talk page if it being here is a problem. I can also remove mention of your previous username at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau; I only noted it there so that others would recognize you. It's odd seeing you with a different username because you used that one for so many years and it's completely different from your current one, but you obviously have to do what is best for you (and your family) if the username change is related to that. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 08:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Seen 2020 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting?
X1\ ( talk) 09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Valjean/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation
A tag has been placed on User:Valjean/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Politrukki ( talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Crossfire HurricaneTo Valjean - I just read through the Crossfire Hurricane article. I think you and Shinealittlelight & starship have all three done a superb job. It's a great article thanks to the hard work of all three of you! BetsyRMadison ( talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Your emailI don't see any valid need for you to berate me about my edits via email. You're complaining about "properly-sourced opinion from the Steele Dossier article"--you can do that on the talk page. You misunderstand a number of things, it seems: for instance, that someone has an opinion about a thing, and that it was printed, doesn't mean it has to be included in an article on the thing. That someone's opinion aligns with Comey's report or whatever, that's neither here nor there. Finally, "You are setting a precedent that advocates of fringe and conspiracy theories will love" is utter nonsense. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion policy and user pagesWith regards to your comment here, So you are Valjean now? I nominated the page for speedy deletion because I spotted your comment I can't say I understand your comment By the way, did you know that you must attribute Wikipedia contributors when you copy-paste material from one page to another? If I recall correctly, Casprings copied some material from Russian interference article without attribution. You repeated the same mistake. To avoid or fix similar mistakes in the future, please read § Proper attribution and § Repairing insufficient attribution. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 11:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been targeted? I don't get whats going on? Casprings ( talk) 14:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2020
Some questions for Trump supportersI don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
What's your position on these assertions? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Actual text of sanctions
Christopher Steele stuffThis might be of interest to you. Bear in mind that it was uploaded by John Solomon, so its authenticity is questionable. It's currently bouncing around the conservative echo chamber as evidence that the FBI was warned that Steele wasn't credible. (Ex: [14]) That seems very far-fetched to me. However if this document is real it might serve another purpose, to shed a little more light on the dossier allegations and how Steele arrived at them. R2 ( bleep) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump Exemption PolicyThe "Trump Exemption Policy" (see here) describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other public person. These editors do not treat other people this way. This is super POV pushing, whitewashing, editorial behavior. Such kid-glove treatment (reserved only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for all public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. He makes sure of that. There should be no special exemptions for Trump, and no double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Trump-Russia "co-operation" provenTerminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. Keep reading, as the next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened. Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There are mountains of evidence for that. See Mueller's exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.
Note those words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties [did indeed take] actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion. See this from: Mueller Report#Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter:
The main fact is that co-operation/collusion actually did happen. Trump invited, welcomed, and facilitated that Russian help, and he never reported it to the FBI. Instead, he lied about it. How do Trump supporters react to that? They stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC) It's an absurd position to hold because they would never do this in real life for anything else. Here's an equivalent situation:
THAT is the current position of Trump supporters, and to make it worse, Trump is not punished for the actions that actually happened, just because "conspiracy" was not proven, largely because of his successful obstruction of the investigation, which Mueller documents. He hasn't even been convicted of obstruction of justice, which is a crime. There are two factors to look at. What is most important, (1) proving a conspiracy to do wrong, or punishing (2) the wrongdoing that occurred? If one cannot prove the conspiracy, should one then ignore the proven wrongdoing and not punish it? That is the GOP/Trump/Putin position: ignore the wrongdoing because the conspiracy hasn't been proven. An unwitting source close to Trump (see Sergei Millian) cited in the Steele Dossier described to a confidant an extensive and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." That confidant relayed that information to Steele. The "conspiracy" (is likely true, but) has not been proven, but there are boatloads of evidence that the "co-operation" happened and is ongoing. The dossier was not wrong about either factor and was correct that Trump and his campaign colluded (invited, accepted, facilitated, responded favorably, refused to condemn) with the Russian interference. Is that treason? When one realizes that this was a military attack on the United States, "treason" is not too strong a word to use. -- Valjean
Valjean, there was no need for a two-year-long invasive special counsel investigation to establish that the
You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request ServiceHi Valjean! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years. In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more. You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way. Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Donald Trump is a lunatic: Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales"If President Trump tweets something that is nonsense, we don't accept him as a source in Wikipedia for random things he says on Twitter. We have a group of admins who are very strict and firm on what can be entered.... The president's power does not extend to shutting down or threatening social media platforms. That's illegal. It's not something he can do. We do have the First Amendment in the US.... The worst-case scenario is that they don't have the courage to tell him to go away, that they begin to adapt their policies to his whims because he's a lunatic." - Jimmy Wales, ET Now, May 28, 2020 (Text is from interview.) Yet another RSN RfC for Fox NewsHi Valjean. I was surprised not to see comments from you in the latest RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Fox_News. I don't know where to look for information on the matter, and continue to be concerned that Wikipedia's policies simply don't address the problems that using sources like Fox News can create. Hope you are well and safe -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 22:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Russian IPI've blocked an IPv6 range that this user switched to after that exchange - where did they claim to be an admin? Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Social democracyHi, could you please check Social democracy? I will probably not be able to edit much until Monday and there is the risk of the user who proposed big, unclear changes to the article will continue edit warring, despite being reverted by two users and not listening to my pleas to take it to talk page and linking the relevant guidelines. I assumed good faith and opened a discussion on the talk page, but I got no reply and just more edit warring and reverting. Please, see also this and let me know if you find other similar patterns. Unfortunately, Social democracy has been plagued by sockpuppeters and with edit warring, so that is why I am suspicious. I would really appreciate if you could tell me whether this is founded or not (I had so many discussions with the same sockpuppeter/blocked user that to me the pattern sounds and looks like obvious). Either way, both the users involved did not liste to my pleas and rather than taking to the talk page as I did, they simply kept reverting and edit warring.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Have you seen this?Have you seen this yet - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies-who-hijacked-america - or some of the other stuff Taibbi has been writing lately? He's got a story up today https://taibbi.substack.com/p/our-man-in-cambridge-93f but I'm not a subscriber and can't read it. What seems to be alleged would be a serious counter narrative to the current portrayel in the relevant articles. But it seems no RS is interesting in covering any of those topics or looking into it. They've all moved on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"User:Jimbo" listed at Redirects for discussionA discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:Jimbo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#User:Jimbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Dossier described as "deeply flawed" and "debunked"@ Mr Ernie:, you wrote: Valjean, where do I find where the NYT calls the Dossier "deeply flawed," or where the Senate Committee Report calls the Dossier "debunked?" These are the recent RS characterizations which have been ignored by this article's editors. Now BLP violations against Rosenstein are ok? I haven't seen any evidence that he covered anything up? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Okay, I found the NY Times wording:
We cover that already with everything RS have said. Mueller did not investigate that charge, but merely glossed it over with a repeat of Cohen's own words. So the NY Time's wording isn't accurate as it wasn't a "finding". Read this whole section VERY carefully. You will see how the coverage has developed: Steele dossier#Cohen and alleged Prague visit -- Valjean ( talk) 23:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Elated doesn't quite cover it
How the Trump-Russia story was buriedExcellent article:
He even shows the unfortunate changes in Greenwald's and Taibbi's thinking. They used to be good sources. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Metadata and Assange's lies about his involvement with Russian intelligenceSaving this here from Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 21. : The Mueller Report mentions the "file-transfer evidence" in the form of dates, evidence found by "U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications". Keep in mind that Assange=WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks computers are his computers, at the time located in the Ecuadorian embassy. Quoting the Mueller Report:
That, with the later comment on p. 48, indicates to me that investigators had access to Assange's computer and other evidence from the WikiLeaks site. The wording is purposefully vague, and some wording is blacked out as "Investigative Technique", but what's readable is pretty clear. Here's wording that can be used in the WikiLeaks article:
That's about the "dissembling"/lies told by Assange/WikiLeaks (many RS). ReversionHello, You reverted my edit. It sounds that you implied that two parts of my edit, comment on Barr and The Guardian commentary are controversial. Is there a section on the page's talk page that have explicitly and specifically mentioned either or both parts of the page? To clarify, Barr's comment on how he has conducted is redundant and separate to the article, that is why it was removed - does not pertain to the Steele Dossier. The Guardian's comment should not be in lead; should be elsewhere in the article. Aviartm ( talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Editing in violation of sanctions
Thank youI want to give sincere thanks to the recent "thank you" expressions that you have given me. I was aware of the science journal editorial but when I read the medical journal editorial I felt that we needed to really make a response to it. Actually, knowing that you edit on both Trump and medical articles, I thought of going to you first for feedback before I made any edits. I note that you did not edit at the article, are you on some sort of restrictions? Gandydancer ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to document "the sum of all human knowledge" using RSBecause Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, a significant objection to unnecessary deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia:
Wikipedia's purpose is to document "the sum of all human knowledge" using RS. What does that look like when one factors in reliable and unreliable sources, and the due weight they deserve? Let me illustrate. When we look up at the night sky, there aren't any large dark areas. Stars are everywhere, some brighter and some fainter. Consider that whole sky to be the "sum of human knowledge", and a comparison of an image of the stars (bits of knowledge) in the night sky, overlaid with an image of Wikipedia's contents, should be a close match. The "brightness" of the "stars" can be seen as the degree of notability and coverage in sources. Some are so bright they are notable for their own articles, and others only as content in articles, but every one of them should be documented by Wikipedia. Some of that brightness is the glimmer of gold from RS, and some is the glimmer of fool's gold from unreliable sources, and here is where the difference between an image of the night sky and an image of Wikipedia's content comes into play. We "adjust" the brightness to match only what comes from RS. Otherwise, the two images should basically match, with no large holes in Wikipedia's coverage of the "sum of human knowledge". Readers should be able to find some type of mention for any serious question they may ask, even if there isn't a whole article covering the subject. Giuliani goes off on Fox Business host after she compares him to Christopher SteeleDoes Fox Business host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery have a point? On a very superficial level, yes, she does, but that's where it ends. As soon as one digs deeper, one discovers many significant differences between Christopher Steele's dossier and Rudy Giuliani's Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.
I have removed this due to concerns expressed by Awilley.] There is a world of difference between the Steele dossier and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Saving JzG's great summary of the issues in Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theoryFrom Talk:Hunter Biden#Conspiracy Theories
Now they've lost their only "evidence"! How convenient for Trump. He can charge Joe and Hunter Biden with corruption and smear them, but without any evidence because his people "lost it". What a crock. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Tucker Carlson's "lost" package found and other newsHere is some of the latest coverage for use: The "lost" package has been found by UPS: This smear operation the work of a fake "intelligence firm":
Glenn Greenwald loses job over this smear operation:
Brian Stelter commentary: Please watch comments that can be reasonably viewed as personal attacks.Valjean, this comment suggesting that anyone who would defend Tucker Carlson is not a reasonable person [ [19]] is certainly something that suggests you don't have an IMPARTIAL POV with regards to the Tucker Carlson Tonight topic and can be reasonably seen as a personal attack on any editor who objects to article content on the grounds of IMPARTIAL, DUE etc. Such comments move away from discussing the article and make implications about editors or people who aren't involved with the article itself. I would ask that you remove that part of the comment. Springee ( talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Reversion 2dafuq You don't recall this? -- Bofuses ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Stalking?The IP 109.249.185.63 may be stalking Bofuses, but it looks like six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. Did you see this trolling on the part of Bofuses? Bishonen | tålk 14:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC).
CONTEXT
Why deleting?Deleting true info is damaging wiki. This is really nasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Judy_Mikovits&diff=987148111&oldid=987147831 Stop censorship. Why you want damaging wikipedia?. -- 88.7.184.176 ( talk) 03:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. Just clarifying the censorship and improving common sense -- 88.7.184.176 ( talk) 22:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) It's actually good to be biased for the factsUser:...., Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" [1] because he's a "habitual liar". [2] You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote " Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean ( talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug EmhoffPlease join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help?Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help? Saving this here for reference] Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box. Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal. In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all. Even WP:ABOUTSELF usage should be minimised where reasonable - e.g., sufficient RS coverage. (Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.) As I write this:
If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy ( WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines ( WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard ( talk) 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ANI comment[21] - I think you forgot to sign. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Look... I hereby admit to having Now look hereThere's no shame in seeing "IndelibleHulk". There are others here who have taken it the same way, so it can't be that wrong. Merely inaccurate, a slight illusion, some words are just naturally too similar. You ever look at a picture of an old man alluding, then at one of him as a younger man not colluding? Then back at the one of him polluting, then back at him not colliding, really fast? Pretty soon you'll do anything anyone says. Some might say I "stole" that deepthought from Jack Handey, but don't you listen! Bunch of vengeful harpies, "some" are. I "used" it. Built upon it, like Principal Skinner built upon Groundskeeper Willie so many Scotchtoberfests ago. You ever see that one? Good times. Anyway, where was I? Oh right, inference; that's the kind of dirty trick that wreaks havoc and discord from the inside out, interference is the other thing. Also, "domestic terror" is not to be confused with "domestic terrorism". If I were a desperate gambling heel (and I'm not anymore), I'd wager Dark Donnie is fixing to play the "capitalize on existing anxiety and depression" card, maybe turn one group of anti-terror neighbours against the other. But don't you listen! A vengeful harpy, that once-blond polluter, the power is yours! As a people, I mean, to not buy into his game. Not suggesting cooperation can save the whole planet, that'd be nuts. But if enough people in the right major American cities could stop squabbling over their implicit differences and see the common scared mortal in all living things, the U.S. Express could indeed be a bit nicer again! Long story short, always look closely, everyone misses something, and in strange aeons, even indelibity may be devoured. Remember the new true normal meaning of Thanksgiving always: If your turkey seems to have been scrawled upon by a "non-toxic" Sharpie, throw it out like it was spoiled, no arguments, no regrets. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Electoral college mapI'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to do here? As far as I can tell the map that's already in that infobox is accurate. Kingofthedead ( talk) 19:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Mirror RS, including when they get it wrong.We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageAbout your requestI'm confused as to what exactly you're asking for. Could you explain exactly what map you would like me to make for you? - MisterElection2001 ( talk) 21:10, November 26, 2020 (UTC)
I think this is what you're looking for:
Re: YurivictI fully agree with your assessment. I'm not experienced writing those kinds of reports, but I've received some advice recently on another case. I'm a little scared by the process of initiating since it could generate anger towards me as I've seen with other cases that I've merely commented on, such as Bus stop. IHateAccounts ( talk) 00:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2020
Community banJust for reference, in regards to this, a community ban can only be requested at WP:AN or WP:ANI. AE is not the proper venue for that. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It's alright, I can handle your truthRegarding your deleted post on my Talk Page, I know how it feels to say something regrettable and long in the heat of a brainfart, I deleted something of a similar size and I'd wager worse from the other Val's talk page today, too. But I left mine in the history, not totally erased. If you insist yours is best left in the void, I trust you, no pressure. Anyway, I've kicked the American politics demon, flung that monkey off my back. Or at least I'm taking Day One one hour at a time! So since we mainly only talked shop in that department, I guess whether things got awkward between us and whether either of us exists in the other's eyes going forward is a moot point, or at best, something time will tell. You ever think about Time? It's a pretty broad subject, lots of smart people swear by it, I'm going to go check it out, see you around somewhere maybe, have fun! InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
|
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Archive 25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion at Talk:Sharyl AttkissonYou are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#About the request to extend full protection by one month. You are encouraged to share your thoughts at the above talkpage discussion, within the next 24 hours, before administrator El C renders his decision on whether to extend the full page protection for Sharyl Attkisson and for how long. Doug Mehus T· C 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Test of spacings around headingsWikipedia's default spacings around headings are:
== Heading ==
Changes to these do not affect the appearance of the final product, but the default spacings make editing easier(*) for editors with older eyes, so please use the default spacings. (*) When quickly scanning the page while in the editing window, the blank line separations jump right out and help one easily and quickly find section headings. To prove how the default spacings work, just try to edit this section and see how it looks. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 18:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
COI at Quackwatch?Notice of COI/N discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Quotes should not be touchedahem 8r' -- 07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Carry onePlease look again. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yulya Alferova 2014 support for TrumpThe Russians knew long before Americans. Here is a tweet by Yulya Alferova, expressing her support for Trump's candidacy. It was from 2014. Trump had been in Moscow in November 2013: Here's a Twitter thread about the matter. Seth is worth following. He's an excellent investigative reporter: Others have noted how the Russians knew about Trump's upcoming candidacy long before he announced it in 2015: https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion-blogs/opinion-here-curious-thing/m14AxcrUgHZNmB6y6kA6SO/
BullRangifer ( talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Sale of 19.5% stake of RosneftThe dossier alleged on October 18, 2016, that Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] About a month after Trump won the election, according to The Guardian, Carter Page traveled to Moscow "shortly before the company announced it was selling a 19.5% stake" in Rosneft. He met with top Russian officials at Rosneft, but denied meeting Sechin. He also complained about the effects of the sanctions against Russia. [6] On December 7, 2016, Putin announced that a 19.5% stake in Rosneft was sold to Glencore and a Qatar fund. Public records showed the ultimate owner included "a Cayman Islands company whose beneficial owners cannot be traced", with "the main question" being "Who is the real buyer of a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft?. ... the Rosneft privatization uses a structure of shell companies owning shell companies." [7] [8] [9] Martin Longman, writing for Washington Monthly, found Steele's prediction of the privatisation of 19% of Rosneft "tantalizing" and "intriguing", and went on to write: "Either that number was floated somewhere in the press or that's a remarkable coincidence or the intelligence was good and the promise was kept." [10] Luke Harding has described the setting of this offer of a 19% stake in Rosneft. It involved an "unusual bribe", a "carrot", a "stick", and "blackmail". Sechin and Divyekin were allegedly using a financial bribe in a classic carrot and stick scheme. The carrot was the financial bribe: "Any brokerage fee would be substantial, in the region of tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars." [11] It also involved a stick, the stick being blackmail of Trump: "Diveykin also delivered an ominous warning. He hinted—or even 'indicated more strongly'—that the Russian leadership had damaging material on Trump, too. Trump 'should bear this in mind' in his dealings with Moscow, Diveykin said. This was blackmail, clear and simple." [11]
Steele pageInteresting idea. Not quite sure how to integrate this but it certainly has merit as we move to a point where the usual excuses will be trotted out again. Guy ( help!) 13:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Do you have Simpson and Fritsch's "Crime In Progress"? Very good. Guy ( help!) 20:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Eichenwald
The dossier alleges that "there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office." [1] (Dossier, p. 14) Kurt Eichenwald confirmed that this happened: "Trump's behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race." [2]
The dossier alleges that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague and met with Russian officials at Rossotrudnichestvo headquarters. While it has not been proven that Cohen did this, something similar did happen:
Kurt Eichenwald reported that something similar happened: "Western intelligence has also obtained reports that a Trump associate met with a pro-Putin member of Russian parliament at a building in Eastern Europe maintained by Rossotrudnichestvo, an agency under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that is charged with administering language, education and support programs for civilians." [2] Please comment on Talk:Sharyl AttkissonThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC) GubarevHis denials proven false, due to evidence found during the discovery process in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others. [3] [4] [5] BLP violations?JFG, thanks for the ping when you deleted my comment. Let's talk about it here. If I supplied the RS which make the case, would that solve the problem? RS describe both of them as boasters who exaggerate their own importance. Millian claims to have been present for the "golden showers" incident. Page has lied and lied until forced to tell the truth under oath, and even then he's probably not telling the full truth. They had to draw it out of him a little bit at a time. Are you in doubt about what I said, or is this purely a BLP "unsourced controversial statement" issue? If it's only the latter, then I commend you for your deletion. Otherwise, the claims can be sourced, and I'll just do it here, for your benefit, as I see no need to restore the comment on the article talk page. The dossier alleges that Source D (Millian) claimed to have been "present" for Trump's alleged "perverted conduct in Moscow". [6] Glenn Simpson doubts Millian's claim, [7] and so do I. I have never seen any evidence that Millian was even with Trump at the Miss Universe pageant in 2013, and Trump's bodyguard makes no mention of Millian when he describes escorting Trump to the Presidential Suite at the Ritz-Carlton and then leaving him alone there. Nothing at all. Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's not entirely impossible that one of the Agalarov's (who had offered the girls to Trump) had Millian escort the girls to Trump's room later in the night, but I highly doubt it. The existing video shows two girls on the bed, one laying down and the other peeing while she's standing, and they are not peeing on Trump. He appears to be pointing and directing them what to do, while also poking at his cell phone, both gestures we have seen many times. The room matches the Presidential Suite exactly. If it's a fake, it's very well done. What's rather amusing about this is that no one on earth, not even Melania, can honestly deny that this isn't something he would do. It's entirely in character, and he lied several times about it. Why lie about it if you're innocent? Sergei Millian (Siarhei Kukuts) is a Belarusian-born American citizen, with close ties to the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, has been identified as both sources D and E, unwitting (and thus a hostile witness) sources mentioned in the Trump–Russia dossier. He never intended his confidential discussions to be repeated to Steele, but that's what happened. [8] [7] [9] [10] ABC News reported that a version of the dossier "provided to the FBI included Millian's name as a source". [11] Here is just one of the sources which describe some of Millian's claims (outside the dossier) as boasting. [10] Here's one for Carter Page. [12] Court testimony shows Page had been lying when he repeatedly denied meeting Russian officials during his 2016 visit to Moscow and Rosneft. While it is still unproven that he actually met with Sechin at that time (he has met him at other times), he did admit to meeting with Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft. That makes sense because the allegations are about matters which would be in Baranov's area of responsibility. Page was "compelled to admit" that fact, [13] and we know that hostile witnesses only admit the truth in little bits, and often never reveal the full truth. Some RS consider his admissions as confirmation about the general veracity of the dossier's allegation, even if a name is wrong. The main facts are that (1) such meetings actually did happen, and (2) he had repeatedly lied about it. The same principle applies to the dossier's allegation that there existed a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." While the "conspiracy" was never proven, the actual "co-operation" was proven with boatloads of evidence. So it was unproven that a "formal agreement" existed, but what is alleged to have actually happened really did happen, and that is really the most important thing. Trump supporters stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. Page is alleged to have met at least two different people at Rosneft in two different meetings. Only one meeting has been dealt with (Baranov). The other meeting is ignored, and it's this one where he allegedly met Sechin. There are a lot of unproven things going on, and we may never get the full truth. He is an untrustworthy hostile witness whose statements to the IG cannot be taken at face value. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
"NPOV is inviolable"
Google TrendsHey in response to this I thought I would reply on your talk page instead of the article talk. I have not used it very often but for example here it is comparing just the search term. When you click on the term at the top a drop down should appear and you can select search term or topic. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Moving my comments
Fourteen years of editing!
Russian state media called Trump their "Agent"X1\ ( talk) 01:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
OnetwothreeipI previously said this in Corker1's user talk, but I'll say it here as well: I feel strongly that this user needs to be reported for his pattern of creating problems, most recently on the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War article, where he's just turned approximately half of the article's references into citation errors. Even if I assume good faith about his editing, which is quite difficult in some cases, this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Competence is required. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 ( talk) 07:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
While I do Second That Emotion in regards to that particular issue...Hi BullRangifer. In this post on teh dramaboard you linked a YouTube video that was most likely uploaded without without permission from its copyright holders. Please see the blah, blah, blah. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 09:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
RE: Ukraine-Trump scandal RFCHi, you have posted a message on my talk page: "Yes, that is the purpose, but those opinions should be backed by RS, not fringe opinions found in unreliable sources. Pushing such opinions on talk pages is forbidden advocacy of fringe opinions. -" Again, I have not stated any opinion, let alone "pushed a fringe opinion" in my response to the RFC. I have not only merely stated my opinion why the proposal should be supported, based on the Wiki guides, I have specifically pointed out in my support arguments, that personal opinions on the truthfulness of underlying actor should not be taken into account in making the decision on allowing the lede inclusion or not. It seems that, just by the mere fact that I am in favor of the proposal, you are infering substantial motive to my support, nothwithstanding completely unsubstantiated. Milanbishop ( talk) 12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC) ANIThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC) AEThere is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement -- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionThis message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Curivity ( talk) 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC) WarningPer the closed WP:AE report at permalink, you are warned that you must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC) The Apprentice: Trump, Russia and the Subversion...
Questions about sourced criticismsThis section is for Curivity when they get off their current block. There are two issues.
Who has used "bias" as a reason for rejecting a source? Extreme bias can affect the reliability of a source, and then it gets rejected, but it is the unreliability that is the real reason, although the extreme bias is certainly related to that. So who has done it? Please proved a quote. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Properly-sourced criticisms from RS must be allowed in all articles. Period. If left- and right-wing sources were equal, there would normally be such content in both articles, but those sources are not equal. Maybe that's the explanation for the difference. Compared to left-wing sources, there are percentage-wise far fewer right-wing sources which are RS, and far more right-wing sources that are unreliable, and therefore deprecated and blacklisted. What happens at one article is irrelevant to what happens at another article, per WP:OTHERTHINGS. Do we look at such things? Yes, we don't completely ignore that if it is problematic. If left- and right-wing sources were equal, then such a difference could be explained by editorial bias, and that would be a violation of NPOV, but they are not equal. With few exceptions, they are on totally different playing fields and operate using different ethical and journalistic standards. There are some basic factors with sources you need to understand. At this time in history (and it's not always this way), left-wing sources tend to be more accurate, even some of the more biased ones. Here are several explanatory factors which have to do with the tendencies (there are exceptions) of the left-wing audience and their sources, compared to right-wingers: higher educational levels, younger age, better critical thinking skills, rejection of conspiracy theories and fake news, dependence on fact-checkers, get information from a wider variety of sources, skepticism of Trump and his sycophants who generally spew lies and literal Russian disinformation all the time, progressives tend to change their minds easier than conservatives, etc. Right-wingers tend to live in right-wing filter bubbles of misinformation fed by sources that serve an extreme and counterfactual agenda more than they search for truth, and this problem has grown exponentially because of Trump's alliance with Russian disinformation and rejection of good news sources, which he calls "fake news". He believes Putin over his own media and intelligence agencies. Think about that. Left-wingers tend to use so many sources, and the sources have higher journalistic standards, that they don't usually get trapped in left-wing filter bubbles. Left-wing sources call each other out if they are inaccurate, and they self-correct, but right-wing sources don't do that as often. Here are some choice quotes:
To sum this up:
BullRangifer ( talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Uniform reference formattingWebsurfer2 and Soibangla, as two of the most prolific adders of RS to our AP2 articles, I respect your hard work very much, so I'd like to pick your brains! As you have probably noticed, I have established a single, uniform, reference formatting style for the Steele dossier article, but my reference-formatting habits aren't informed by a whole lot of research or shared knowledge, and I'd like to learn from both of you. I hope that we can end up agreeing on a uniform formatting method to harmonize our work, so I have a few questions for you: 1. What tools do you use? 2. What citation format(s) do you like? 3. Do you attempt to make sure that a reference isn't already in use? 4. Do you use the same references across different articles? 5. Do you always name a reference? 6. What guidelines, websites, or charts do you use as guides for whether a source is generally reliable or not? 7. Other information.... BullRangifer ( talk) 02:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1. What tools do you use?
2. What citation format(s) do you like?
3. Do you attempt to make sure that a reference isn't already in use?
4. Do you use the same references across different articles?
5. Do you always name a reference?
6. What guidelines, websites, or charts do you use as guides for whether a source is generally reliable or not?
7. Other information....BLP violations in talk page commentsGreetings BullRangifer. We haven't talked in a while, and I wish you a nice happy new decade. I was perusing the recent discussions at Talk:Steele dossier, and came upon this remark you made:
(emphasis mine) That's three BLP violations in just one sentence. We may excuse you for repeating the widely-reported claim that Putin kills journalists for sport, but you are also saying that both Trump and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) were in cahoots to liquidate Jamal Khashoggi. That's an unfounded criminal aspersion on both Trump and MBS. You do mention that this was "[your] speculation based on what we do know", but that does not excuse the BLPVIO aspect. I would recommend striking this sentence, and watching your tongue (or fingers) going forward. — JFG talk 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing restrictions ... for Tulsi Gabbard article?Suggestions for editing restrictions beyond 1RR for Tulsi Gabbard article? Hi BullRangifer. I thought you might have some suggestions on editing restrictions for Tulsi Gabbard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I tend to avoid such political articles, so am not familiar with how they are managed. I see you regularly working on them, so thought you might have some suggestions. Thank you in advance. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Network Propaganda... in American PoliticsThis is an excellent RS and resource:
Search that page for various websites and sources. Try Fox. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) courtesy notificationPer your previous "Agree" comment, I am giving notice I have changed the title to avoid parenthesis at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Requested move 14 January 2020. X1\ ( talk) 00:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Hopefully this doesn't bring back bad memories, but this may be of 2018 (Carr Fire) interest
Update template
Would like moreHello I would like to add more articles about the scandal that you had posted on. Thanks can you please help create additional articles?I don't want the users especially User:WikipediaUser or the public to see many red names on the navbox. thanks... Personisgaming ( talk) 03:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, here's how to get started. You can work on it in a text program like Word, or you can also work on it here:
Feel free to contact me along the way, and I'll give you advice. Whatever you do, work quietly "behind the scenes" and don't violate BLP by making unsourced negative allegations. Use only reliable sources. Also, don't violate WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Don't try to "go public" with your article too early. No matter when you do it, expect that someone will try to get it deleted, so don't give them any excuses by publishing an article with flaws or too few RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 January 2020
A kitten for you!Thanks for your thorough and civil explanation on the MMR vaccine and autism page regarding why we will not include false balance of pseudoscience. JoelWhy?( talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Trigenics for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Trigenics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be
deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigenics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. The Anome ( talk) 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – February 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
BLP warningHello, I'm 63.155.63.122. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Viktor Shokin, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Viktor_Shokin&diff=939069026&oldid=939029192 You are stating allegations of bribery from the friends of an oligarch as if they are a fact. This is a BLP violation. 63.155.63.122 ( talk) 02:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Stalking- Final WarningI have suspected that you have been stalking me in recent weeks. Now, it has become 100% clear to me that you are. Every time I edit a page or make a comment somewhere, you show up shortly thereafter (and I can easily provide diffs of this). Consider this your final warning. I have tried to avoid you for months so there would not be any conflict, but you've made that impossible. I do not care how many admin friends you have, follow me around just one more time and I will bring you to a noticeboard once again.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nineteen Eighty-Four comparisonsHi BullRangifer, I was going to post this in response to your comment about Nineteen Eighty-Four, but that probably would have crossed into WP:NOTFORUM territory, so I'll share it here instead. I think this poem, " September 1, 1939" is a far more apt comparison for this day and age. It's probably the third or fourth most important poem of the 20th Century (up there with "Easter, 1916", "In Memory of Y.B. Yeats" and "The Second Coming"). In fact, with a few tweaks, you could probably call it " January 20, 2017" without noticing much difference. These are probably the most relevant parts:
[Change "Luther" to "Washington" and "Linz" to "Queens".]
And then there's this part from later in the poem:
Every time I see one of Trump's rallies, I immediately think of the lines "The windiest militant trash / Important Persons shout" and "Not universal love / But to be loved alone". Fortunately, the poem ends on a much more hopeful note. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 05:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to wonder what his endgame is. He's already alluded to a third term in some of his rallies—it was months, if not years ago, but he telegraphs his moves well in advance. But there doesn't seem to be any objective. Whatever agenda he had seemed to stall around the election of Emmanuel Macron. Until then, there was a resurgence in right-wing populism: Trump, Brexit and a few elections in Europe. Marine Le Pen looked like she waa going to be next, but she was thoroughly rejected at the ballot box. Then Merkel won re-election in Germany and that wave of right-wing populism stalled. Trump seems to have been spinning his wheels ever since. He obviously needs the adoration of millions to satiate his ego, so is it just as simple as wanting to go down as America's "best" president with the "best" vision of what the country should be? Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
New York PostIn your edit summary here, you declare that the New York Post "is not a RS." However, as I read Wikipedia's guidance, there is (a) no consensus regarding the Post′s reliability, and (b) it has not been deprecated. Doesn't that mean it may be cited? NedFausa ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Article size limits and citation templatesMandruss wrote that the "technical limit" is about "post-expand include size":
Since the details of the discussion were distracting at Talk:Donald Trump, I'd like to pursue this here. Since I'm not technical, if there is any merit to my ideas, I need to be able to pursue this further at the Village pump in an intelligent manner by not starting off as a total ignoramus who assumes the wrong things and asks the wrong questions. That's a recipe for failure. My idea is to examine the idea of not using reference citation templates anymore and just using the same content, in the same format, but as pure text, without any template. That should solve a large part of the problem with the technical limits for article size, which is a problem with the Donald Trump article, among other large articles that are extensively sourced. I'm copying a few comments here to seed the discussion, thus pinging the editors who seem to know much more about this than I do. (Adding Davidwr) Here's the discussion so far: Since several discussions above are about "size", and citation templates seem to be a big factor, shouldn't we propose dropping them, but keeping the same format? Here's an example:
The appearance and content are the same. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion would only work if it was (1) adopted site wide, and (2) automated. Since it is templates (and we use lots of citation templates) that causes problems, not just size in raw bytes, I thought the idea might be worth consideration. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
RfC on 2A Sanctuary articlePlease consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. -- Mox La Push ( talk) 08:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) SourcesI don't use sites like Vox for contentious claims about living people. The Page stuff, if it's genuinely significant, would have been covered by someone like WaPo. And if it wasn't (spoiler: I am pretty sure it was), it's likely WP:UNDUE. Especially in the current climate, with Trumpists trying to wave away all evidence of Russian interference in 2016 or 2020 and promote the deep state conspiracy theory in its place. Guy ( help!) 16:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
Sorry for bothering you, but...
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
"Some would say..."It feels like yesterday that you were specifically warned against speculating about the competence of other users. I'm looking at this diff where you say "Any editor who favors misinformation from unreliable sources and denies RS should not edit in the relevant areas, and some would say they lack the skills to edit here at all, at least on controversial topics." Please retract that and stop harping on the competence thing. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen these stories yet?Hello, and hope all is well with you. Have you seen these stories yet? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html It's interesting to me to see both sides (the US Gov't and the Concord attorneys) take on why they are dropping it. I guess we may have a few pages to update. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Belated wishesHello V. I saw that your name change was a birthday request so I want to wish you a Happy Birthday a month late :) MarnetteD| Talk 16:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Username change from BullRangifer to Valjean.
On 14:30, March 23, 2020, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean. I have desired a username change for some time, and after some waiting it has finally happened. Jean Valjean is the hero of Les Misérables, my favorite book, which I have read in several languages. His just character is worthy of much admiration and emulation. I'm also a fan of the 1980 musical. I also considered a username associated with Atticus Finch, another hero of mine, but Atticus Finch and Jean Valjean were already taken. Valjean was available, so I chose that one. I know that this is offensive to some very religious people, but if I had to choose a book to give someone, and I had to choose between the Bible and Les Misérables, I'd give them Les Misérables. The principles of honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, kindness, selflessness, simplicity, heroism, and social justice found in the Bible are portrayed in a much clearer manner in Les Misérables. Jean Valjean was completely transformed from a hardened criminal into a virtuous man by the kindness and grace of Bishop Myriel. After his fateful meeting with Myriel, Valjean modeled his own life after the character of Myriel. We all need heroes, and they should be chosen wisely. I used to own the book, CDs, and DVDs of the movie and musical in several languages. I even found an ancient 12-volume leather-bound set of Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Copenhagen, a great city for old books and cultural events, where we also saw the musical in the round Østre Gasværk Teater, with its revolving stage. A great experience. My wife and I especially loved the 2019, six-part Masterpiece Theatre adaptation from PBS: " Dominic West stars as fugitive Jean Valjean, with David Oyelowo as his pursuer Inspector Javert and Lily Collins as the luckless single mother Fantine. Love, death, and the struggle for social justice in early 19th-century France feature in this beautifully faithful retelling of one of the world's most beloved stories." [11] I especially loved the DVDs for the 10th Anniversary "Dream Cast" concert at the Royal Albert Hall and the 25th Anniversary concert in The O2 Arena, but lost them, along with everything else, in the 2018 Camp Fire. After the fire, my dear daughter, who knew how much that book meant to me, gifted me a nice copy of the book. A home without any books is a sad place, so that book started my now-limited and budding collection of favorite books. All my medical textbooks, in at least five languages, are gone. I have no plans for resuming any large-scale collecting of books. I used to lug over forty, very heavy, banana boxes of books around the world whenever we moved. No more of that! -- Valjean ( talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know
User:SD0001/unreliable.js a test version of my script (
Jimmy Carter says Trump lost the election
Preciousflora and fauna of Greenland Thank you for quality articles such as Spinal disc herniation, Charlotte's web (cannabis), Flora and fauna of Greenland, Vis medicatrix naturae, in service from 2005, for encouragement, for changing your username to your hero, for "Let freedom ring!" - you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2368 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Cool name change!Just wanted to say hi, again. (Also, User:Javert is never going to be allowed, will it?) — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Anon IPDon't worry about the IP posting "threats". It appears to be an unfortunately quite unwell person. Congrats on name change, at least this one I am sure how to pronounce! Koncorde ( talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Misinformation about the virusHello there 👋 you’ve removed the following from “Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic” page, citing a lack of RW? What does that mean? Thanks The Chinese government officials initially claimed that the virus doesn't transmit from human to human. The WHO has cited this information in the following Twitter post from January 14th, 2020: ″Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China″ Berehinia (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Berehinia ( talk) 05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask you to what this acronym stands forSorry to bother you on your talk page but I got a question thats been bugging me. What does RS stand for? At first I thought you meant RT ( Russia Today), but of course their his biggest supporters in the media, so it couldn't be that obviously based what your saying it implies. I tried googling RS + Wikileaks as well but I didn't see anything that seemed relevant. I'm sure its something really basic though, that I should have instantly got, and I'm gonna feel really dumb for not realizing thats what you meant. -- Kwwhit5531 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
My edit was reverted but I don't think it should have been. I did not alter the content of the article and I made a post on the talk page beforehand (although not long before). The introduction was difficult to read as it was and said the same thing over and over citing different sources. I will make add more on the talk page beforehand and wait another day to see if there are any responses on the talk page before I fix the section again. Jlf3756 ( talk) 03:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
PA at CH articleI don't want to take you to a administrator. But I have now asked you to strike your PAs about me twice, and both times you struck your previous attack just to add another one. So final request: please strike your most recent attack on me without further comment about me, and let's focus on content. I'm here in good faith, I'm following BRD, and I'm open to discussion. I only want to improve the article. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Your name changeI just became aware of your name change when pinging you at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau. And now I see the page notice above as I type this. I am sorry that you and your family were harassed. I didn't know. I also don't know if changing your username has to do with that. Feel free to remove this section from your talk page if it being here is a problem. I can also remove mention of your previous username at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau; I only noted it there so that others would recognize you. It's odd seeing you with a different username because you used that one for so many years and it's completely different from your current one, but you obviously have to do what is best for you (and your family) if the username change is related to that. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 08:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Seen 2020 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting?
X1\ ( talk) 09:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Valjean/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation
A tag has been placed on User:Valjean/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Politrukki ( talk) 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Crossfire HurricaneTo Valjean - I just read through the Crossfire Hurricane article. I think you and Shinealittlelight & starship have all three done a superb job. It's a great article thanks to the hard work of all three of you! BetsyRMadison ( talk) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Your emailI don't see any valid need for you to berate me about my edits via email. You're complaining about "properly-sourced opinion from the Steele Dossier article"--you can do that on the talk page. You misunderstand a number of things, it seems: for instance, that someone has an opinion about a thing, and that it was printed, doesn't mean it has to be included in an article on the thing. That someone's opinion aligns with Comey's report or whatever, that's neither here nor there. Finally, "You are setting a precedent that advocates of fringe and conspiracy theories will love" is utter nonsense. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion policy and user pagesWith regards to your comment here, So you are Valjean now? I nominated the page for speedy deletion because I spotted your comment I can't say I understand your comment By the way, did you know that you must attribute Wikipedia contributors when you copy-paste material from one page to another? If I recall correctly, Casprings copied some material from Russian interference article without attribution. You repeated the same mistake. To avoid or fix similar mistakes in the future, please read § Proper attribution and § Repairing insufficient attribution. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 11:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been targeted? I don't get whats going on? Casprings ( talk) 14:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2020
Some questions for Trump supportersI don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
What's your position on these assertions? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Actual text of sanctions
Christopher Steele stuffThis might be of interest to you. Bear in mind that it was uploaded by John Solomon, so its authenticity is questionable. It's currently bouncing around the conservative echo chamber as evidence that the FBI was warned that Steele wasn't credible. (Ex: [14]) That seems very far-fetched to me. However if this document is real it might serve another purpose, to shed a little more light on the dossier allegations and how Steele arrived at them. R2 ( bleep) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump Exemption PolicyThe "Trump Exemption Policy" (see here) describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other public person. These editors do not treat other people this way. This is super POV pushing, whitewashing, editorial behavior. Such kid-glove treatment (reserved only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for all public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. He makes sure of that. There should be no special exemptions for Trump, and no double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Trump-Russia "co-operation" provenTerminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. Keep reading, as the next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened. Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There are mountains of evidence for that. See Mueller's exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.
Note those words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties [did indeed take] actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion. See this from: Mueller Report#Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter:
The main fact is that co-operation/collusion actually did happen. Trump invited, welcomed, and facilitated that Russian help, and he never reported it to the FBI. Instead, he lied about it. How do Trump supporters react to that? They stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC) It's an absurd position to hold because they would never do this in real life for anything else. Here's an equivalent situation:
THAT is the current position of Trump supporters, and to make it worse, Trump is not punished for the actions that actually happened, just because "conspiracy" was not proven, largely because of his successful obstruction of the investigation, which Mueller documents. He hasn't even been convicted of obstruction of justice, which is a crime. There are two factors to look at. What is most important, (1) proving a conspiracy to do wrong, or punishing (2) the wrongdoing that occurred? If one cannot prove the conspiracy, should one then ignore the proven wrongdoing and not punish it? That is the GOP/Trump/Putin position: ignore the wrongdoing because the conspiracy hasn't been proven. An unwitting source close to Trump (see Sergei Millian) cited in the Steele Dossier described to a confidant an extensive and "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." That confidant relayed that information to Steele. The "conspiracy" (is likely true, but) has not been proven, but there are boatloads of evidence that the "co-operation" happened and is ongoing. The dossier was not wrong about either factor and was correct that Trump and his campaign colluded (invited, accepted, facilitated, responded favorably, refused to condemn) with the Russian interference. Is that treason? When one realizes that this was a military attack on the United States, "treason" is not too strong a word to use. -- Valjean
Valjean, there was no need for a two-year-long invasive special counsel investigation to establish that the
You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request ServiceHi Valjean! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years. In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more. You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way. Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Donald Trump is a lunatic: Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales"If President Trump tweets something that is nonsense, we don't accept him as a source in Wikipedia for random things he says on Twitter. We have a group of admins who are very strict and firm on what can be entered.... The president's power does not extend to shutting down or threatening social media platforms. That's illegal. It's not something he can do. We do have the First Amendment in the US.... The worst-case scenario is that they don't have the courage to tell him to go away, that they begin to adapt their policies to his whims because he's a lunatic." - Jimmy Wales, ET Now, May 28, 2020 (Text is from interview.) Yet another RSN RfC for Fox NewsHi Valjean. I was surprised not to see comments from you in the latest RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Fox_News. I don't know where to look for information on the matter, and continue to be concerned that Wikipedia's policies simply don't address the problems that using sources like Fox News can create. Hope you are well and safe -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 22:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Russian IPI've blocked an IPv6 range that this user switched to after that exchange - where did they claim to be an admin? Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Social democracyHi, could you please check Social democracy? I will probably not be able to edit much until Monday and there is the risk of the user who proposed big, unclear changes to the article will continue edit warring, despite being reverted by two users and not listening to my pleas to take it to talk page and linking the relevant guidelines. I assumed good faith and opened a discussion on the talk page, but I got no reply and just more edit warring and reverting. Please, see also this and let me know if you find other similar patterns. Unfortunately, Social democracy has been plagued by sockpuppeters and with edit warring, so that is why I am suspicious. I would really appreciate if you could tell me whether this is founded or not (I had so many discussions with the same sockpuppeter/blocked user that to me the pattern sounds and looks like obvious). Either way, both the users involved did not liste to my pleas and rather than taking to the talk page as I did, they simply kept reverting and edit warring.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Have you seen this?Have you seen this yet - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies-who-hijacked-america - or some of the other stuff Taibbi has been writing lately? He's got a story up today https://taibbi.substack.com/p/our-man-in-cambridge-93f but I'm not a subscriber and can't read it. What seems to be alleged would be a serious counter narrative to the current portrayel in the relevant articles. But it seems no RS is interesting in covering any of those topics or looking into it. They've all moved on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"User:Jimbo" listed at Redirects for discussionA discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:Jimbo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#User:Jimbo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Dossier described as "deeply flawed" and "debunked"@ Mr Ernie:, you wrote: Valjean, where do I find where the NYT calls the Dossier "deeply flawed," or where the Senate Committee Report calls the Dossier "debunked?" These are the recent RS characterizations which have been ignored by this article's editors. Now BLP violations against Rosenstein are ok? I haven't seen any evidence that he covered anything up? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Okay, I found the NY Times wording:
We cover that already with everything RS have said. Mueller did not investigate that charge, but merely glossed it over with a repeat of Cohen's own words. So the NY Time's wording isn't accurate as it wasn't a "finding". Read this whole section VERY carefully. You will see how the coverage has developed: Steele dossier#Cohen and alleged Prague visit -- Valjean ( talk) 23:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Elated doesn't quite cover it
How the Trump-Russia story was buriedExcellent article:
He even shows the unfortunate changes in Greenwald's and Taibbi's thinking. They used to be good sources. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Metadata and Assange's lies about his involvement with Russian intelligenceSaving this here from Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 21. : The Mueller Report mentions the "file-transfer evidence" in the form of dates, evidence found by "U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications". Keep in mind that Assange=WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks computers are his computers, at the time located in the Ecuadorian embassy. Quoting the Mueller Report:
That, with the later comment on p. 48, indicates to me that investigators had access to Assange's computer and other evidence from the WikiLeaks site. The wording is purposefully vague, and some wording is blacked out as "Investigative Technique", but what's readable is pretty clear. Here's wording that can be used in the WikiLeaks article:
That's about the "dissembling"/lies told by Assange/WikiLeaks (many RS). ReversionHello, You reverted my edit. It sounds that you implied that two parts of my edit, comment on Barr and The Guardian commentary are controversial. Is there a section on the page's talk page that have explicitly and specifically mentioned either or both parts of the page? To clarify, Barr's comment on how he has conducted is redundant and separate to the article, that is why it was removed - does not pertain to the Steele Dossier. The Guardian's comment should not be in lead; should be elsewhere in the article. Aviartm ( talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Editing in violation of sanctions
Thank youI want to give sincere thanks to the recent "thank you" expressions that you have given me. I was aware of the science journal editorial but when I read the medical journal editorial I felt that we needed to really make a response to it. Actually, knowing that you edit on both Trump and medical articles, I thought of going to you first for feedback before I made any edits. I note that you did not edit at the article, are you on some sort of restrictions? Gandydancer ( talk) 19:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to document "the sum of all human knowledge" using RSBecause Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, a significant objection to unnecessary deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia:
Wikipedia's purpose is to document "the sum of all human knowledge" using RS. What does that look like when one factors in reliable and unreliable sources, and the due weight they deserve? Let me illustrate. When we look up at the night sky, there aren't any large dark areas. Stars are everywhere, some brighter and some fainter. Consider that whole sky to be the "sum of human knowledge", and a comparison of an image of the stars (bits of knowledge) in the night sky, overlaid with an image of Wikipedia's contents, should be a close match. The "brightness" of the "stars" can be seen as the degree of notability and coverage in sources. Some are so bright they are notable for their own articles, and others only as content in articles, but every one of them should be documented by Wikipedia. Some of that brightness is the glimmer of gold from RS, and some is the glimmer of fool's gold from unreliable sources, and here is where the difference between an image of the night sky and an image of Wikipedia's content comes into play. We "adjust" the brightness to match only what comes from RS. Otherwise, the two images should basically match, with no large holes in Wikipedia's coverage of the "sum of human knowledge". Readers should be able to find some type of mention for any serious question they may ask, even if there isn't a whole article covering the subject. Giuliani goes off on Fox Business host after she compares him to Christopher SteeleDoes Fox Business host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery have a point? On a very superficial level, yes, she does, but that's where it ends. As soon as one digs deeper, one discovers many significant differences between Christopher Steele's dossier and Rudy Giuliani's Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.
I have removed this due to concerns expressed by Awilley.] There is a world of difference between the Steele dossier and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Saving JzG's great summary of the issues in Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theoryFrom Talk:Hunter Biden#Conspiracy Theories
Now they've lost their only "evidence"! How convenient for Trump. He can charge Joe and Hunter Biden with corruption and smear them, but without any evidence because his people "lost it". What a crock. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Tucker Carlson's "lost" package found and other newsHere is some of the latest coverage for use: The "lost" package has been found by UPS: This smear operation the work of a fake "intelligence firm":
Glenn Greenwald loses job over this smear operation:
Brian Stelter commentary: Please watch comments that can be reasonably viewed as personal attacks.Valjean, this comment suggesting that anyone who would defend Tucker Carlson is not a reasonable person [ [19]] is certainly something that suggests you don't have an IMPARTIAL POV with regards to the Tucker Carlson Tonight topic and can be reasonably seen as a personal attack on any editor who objects to article content on the grounds of IMPARTIAL, DUE etc. Such comments move away from discussing the article and make implications about editors or people who aren't involved with the article itself. I would ask that you remove that part of the comment. Springee ( talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Reversion 2dafuq You don't recall this? -- Bofuses ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Stalking?The IP 109.249.185.63 may be stalking Bofuses, but it looks like six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. Did you see this trolling on the part of Bofuses? Bishonen | tålk 14:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC).
CONTEXT
Why deleting?Deleting true info is damaging wiki. This is really nasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Judy_Mikovits&diff=987148111&oldid=987147831 Stop censorship. Why you want damaging wikipedia?. -- 88.7.184.176 ( talk) 03:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. Just clarifying the censorship and improving common sense -- 88.7.184.176 ( talk) 22:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) It's actually good to be biased for the factsUser:...., Wikipedia (that's us) is not supposed to choose sides, but it is unabashedly, because of our RS policy, on the side of RS when there is no doubt about a matter. Wikipedia (editors) is unabashedly on the side of the fact that the sky is blue and that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale. That's not opinion or a "view", it's a well-established fact backed by the vast preponderance of RS and huge amounts of measurable data. Few facts are more firmly established by data and data analysis. You can bank on this, because experience has taught us that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" [1] because he's a "habitual liar". [2] You see, facts are not like opinions. They aren't mushy. They can withstand the onslaught of fact checkers and scientific analysis. They survive. Our duty is to make sure we don't present facts as opinions (and the converse). This is about the fact that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented scale and manner, and opinions that doubt that fact have little due weight and should only get passing mention. NPOV does require we document disagreement with that fact, but due weight tells us to do so in a very limited manner. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopedia. It is neutral when it documents what RS say, even if what RS say appears to be biased (to the uninformed). NPOV requires that we document that bias and not censor or neuter it. Bias isn't always bad, and it's actually good to be biased for the facts. The facts are not central in politics, but are often held more firmly by one side more than the other, hence the famous quote " Reality has a well known liberal bias", or, as Paul Krugman put it, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias". -- Valjean ( talk) 04:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug EmhoffPlease join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help?Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: can you help? Saving this here for reference] Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box. Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal. In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all. Even WP:ABOUTSELF usage should be minimised where reasonable - e.g., sufficient RS coverage. (Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.) As I write this:
If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy ( WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines ( WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard ( talk) 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ANI comment[21] - I think you forgot to sign. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Look... I hereby admit to having Now look hereThere's no shame in seeing "IndelibleHulk". There are others here who have taken it the same way, so it can't be that wrong. Merely inaccurate, a slight illusion, some words are just naturally too similar. You ever look at a picture of an old man alluding, then at one of him as a younger man not colluding? Then back at the one of him polluting, then back at him not colliding, really fast? Pretty soon you'll do anything anyone says. Some might say I "stole" that deepthought from Jack Handey, but don't you listen! Bunch of vengeful harpies, "some" are. I "used" it. Built upon it, like Principal Skinner built upon Groundskeeper Willie so many Scotchtoberfests ago. You ever see that one? Good times. Anyway, where was I? Oh right, inference; that's the kind of dirty trick that wreaks havoc and discord from the inside out, interference is the other thing. Also, "domestic terror" is not to be confused with "domestic terrorism". If I were a desperate gambling heel (and I'm not anymore), I'd wager Dark Donnie is fixing to play the "capitalize on existing anxiety and depression" card, maybe turn one group of anti-terror neighbours against the other. But don't you listen! A vengeful harpy, that once-blond polluter, the power is yours! As a people, I mean, to not buy into his game. Not suggesting cooperation can save the whole planet, that'd be nuts. But if enough people in the right major American cities could stop squabbling over their implicit differences and see the common scared mortal in all living things, the U.S. Express could indeed be a bit nicer again! Long story short, always look closely, everyone misses something, and in strange aeons, even indelibity may be devoured. Remember the new true normal meaning of Thanksgiving always: If your turkey seems to have been scrawled upon by a "non-toxic" Sharpie, throw it out like it was spoiled, no arguments, no regrets. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Electoral college mapI'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to do here? As far as I can tell the map that's already in that infobox is accurate. Kingofthedead ( talk) 19:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Mirror RS, including when they get it wrong.We should do what RS do. If something changes, we can always change it here. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until after the fact. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting OR, wishful thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageAbout your requestI'm confused as to what exactly you're asking for. Could you explain exactly what map you would like me to make for you? - MisterElection2001 ( talk) 21:10, November 26, 2020 (UTC)
I think this is what you're looking for:
Re: YurivictI fully agree with your assessment. I'm not experienced writing those kinds of reports, but I've received some advice recently on another case. I'm a little scared by the process of initiating since it could generate anger towards me as I've seen with other cases that I've merely commented on, such as Bus stop. IHateAccounts ( talk) 00:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2020
Community banJust for reference, in regards to this, a community ban can only be requested at WP:AN or WP:ANI. AE is not the proper venue for that. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It's alright, I can handle your truthRegarding your deleted post on my Talk Page, I know how it feels to say something regrettable and long in the heat of a brainfart, I deleted something of a similar size and I'd wager worse from the other Val's talk page today, too. But I left mine in the history, not totally erased. If you insist yours is best left in the void, I trust you, no pressure. Anyway, I've kicked the American politics demon, flung that monkey off my back. Or at least I'm taking Day One one hour at a time! So since we mainly only talked shop in that department, I guess whether things got awkward between us and whether either of us exists in the other's eyes going forward is a moot point, or at best, something time will tell. You ever think about Time? It's a pretty broad subject, lots of smart people swear by it, I'm going to go check it out, see you around somewhere maybe, have fun! InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
|