Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Steve Quinn (
talk) 05:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am User:Steve Quinn. I know you are not a new editor but I wanted to leave a message on your talk page. I thought welcoming you first would be best, even though you were probably welcomed awhile ago. The message I wish to leave is as follows and for your benefit. Everyone on the Seth Rich talk page gets one (including me):
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or is Macon edit warring to include the tabloid reference, violating ARBAP2 and 1RR? SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: He's put it back in three times now within a period of 24 hours 42 minutes, after it was removed by three different editors. For now, I've edited my "analysis" of Mr. Allen's piece of manure a little and added it to the discussion Herostratus started on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll see what happens; I can't believe that the other editors have read the same article. I suspect/hope they've been discussing The Telegraph in general terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Steve Quinn: Your post here arrived while I was busy on the noticeboard thing. Please, read my comments there. I still think the question shouldn't have been whether the Telegraph is a reliable source, but whether the article/author is. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Page is now under restrictions per Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Active_arbitration_remedies.
Though it is interesting sourced info, suggest you self-revert this edit here, and instead bring to talk page to discuss. Sagecandor ( talk) 08:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor: I moved it to the "Commentary and Reactions - Former CIA Officers Section" before I saw your post. I'll remove it and take it to the Talk section. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Did you intend to be launching a formal RfC at Seth Rich talk? If so, I believe that you need to state a simple clear proposition, such as should your edit replace the previous text. I'm not sure whether this is needed, especially since no editor has yet disagreed with your edit, which seems to have obvious merit. Also if you wish this to be an RfC, there should be a separate "threaded discussion" section beneath the yes/no section of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you forgot to sign the following comment at Russian Interferences...
SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Mea culpa. Thanks, added it now. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambert C. Mims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uriah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
For the edit summary here. I realized that it was simple mistake, but that simple mistake completely flipped the meaning of the sentence. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
reacting to your comment on Talk:German Americans in the American Civil War. You know that there is an American Civil War taskforce on the Military History project, right? Also, if you´re interested in learning and discussing about the civil war with likeminded people outside of wiki I can only recommend to take a look or join us at Civil War Talk. Regards ... GELongstreet ( talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I voted! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your redirect of Klanbake to the internet meme article was inappropriate because that page does not mention the term. I've redirected it to the specific section about the meme in the Democratic convention article, so readers will go straight to the debunking of the term instead of having to hunt around for it. I agree the plain redirect to the convention page was wrong. Fences& Windows 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Fences and windows: Thanks. I just wanted to get rid of that redirect fast and couldn't think of anything better to do short of deleting the redirect altogether and copying the paragraph from the convention article which would also have been inappropriate. Is this what you did: #REDIRECT 1924 Democratic National Convention#"Klanbake" meme (for future reference)? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Since you edited Paul Erickson a bit, perhaps you'd be willing to weigh in on the pending disputes at Talk:Paul Erickson? We could use your input. Thanks in advance. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You just restored a challenged edit here
here. Specifically the removal of this "Trump's racially insensitive statements[270] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,"
. You also didn't leave an edit summary. I request that you restore this material until there is consensus to remove it, per the page editing restrictions.-
Mr
X 🖋 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
MrX I was actually partially undoing JFG's edit (and improving the structure while I was at it). Didn't notice that you had challenged his changes between the time I started writing and saved. I self-reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. You have violated the 1RR restriction with these
two
reverts.
Further, you violated the requirement for talk page consensus for challenged edits with
this revert. The image has been in the article for months and its removal was challenged, therefore talk page consensus is required to remove it.
As I see it you need to do two self-reverts. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: Rodman - When and where was the removal of the picture challenged? There was a brief discussion before the removal, ending with So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
, the picture was removed, and two days later an editor reinserted it. Shouldn't that editor have discussed the reinsertion? As for the other two, I didn't regard changing the size of an image as a revert. I'll revert that for now and wait for your response on Rodman.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I still think the original removal was the challenge- I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit.
Your comments, here and here, inspired me into doing a bit of research as to why using time/date stamps on a busy TP doesn't work as well as providing the actual diffs, so I asked the experts and thought it might prove helpful to share it with you. Atsme 📞 📧 18:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
This has now been closed, and as far as I can tell your proposed language was the best most recent version and should be placed in the article. Seems like you would be best equipped to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Thanks for the vote of confidence :). There hasn't been any reaction to my last proposal (version D, substituting "improper entry" for "unlawfully crossing") so I don't feel all that anointed. When I have more time than right now, I'll try to come up with a version without the "factual inaccuracies" Neutrality pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Continued from Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts, since the usual Trump apologists have shut down a discussion they don't like. They often do this to head off the development of a consensus for an article.
Your comment:
Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar" | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not." [1] David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...." [2] Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly:
On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead." [4] Three days later he wrote: Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism, By Gerard Baker, Jan. 4, 2017
Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing". [6] He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before." [7] Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty — the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...." [8] Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'" [8] Adrienne LaFrance: Calling Out a Presidential Lie [9] The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited. [4]
Don't Call Trump a Liar—He Doesn't Even Care About the Truth, Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017
"Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to.
|
An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 ( talk) 23:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I voted! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That huge chunk of "achievements" text on the Chao page is most likely by COI accounts who are adding flattering content about here. It should just be removed in full. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: [2]
It's not a really big deal, but since you said "per Mandruss" I wanted to make sure you understood that my preference was to accept the duplicate and keep the bundle at 6. If you understand that and disagree, I defer to your judgment. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I voted! (Almost missed the deadline this year.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 10 months overdue. Enjoy! ― Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Biden says he doesn't remember Reade, not doesn't remember her working for him, see citation. We also know the year, and who's who. Did you mean this summary for something else, POV-related? InedibleHulk ( talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, long talk page so I can’t find the ping on mobile. Only to the image. The captain can be worked out through the normal editing and talk page process. Likely doesn’t need an RfC :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donald J. Trump posing with Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2020.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donald J. Trump posing with Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2020.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's the full article in an easier link without all the ads and videos. It's still not substantial imo but figured you'd want to see it. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, the URL for The Brooklyn Daily Eagle is incorrect and duplicates that of the preceding cite. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you props for the TPUSA work. It's a mess of an article but I think you are doing a really good job of pushing the content towards impartial presentation. I think many confuse trying to be impartial with outright whitewashing. Anyway, thumbs up. Springee ( talk) 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
My honors were misstated on a book jacket the other way, repeated endlessly wrong until my next book was published. Otherwise excellent projection on the Ivanka Trump talk page as if you speak for the honors classes of the country. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 ( talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Re
this edit, why? |newspaper=
is an alias of |work=
, so there is no difference in what readers see. What is the benefit of changing the coding at a cost of 1,111 bytes? ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
|newspaper=
for web-based newspapers, necessarily, and one could hold the opinion that it should only be used for paper newspapers. That and the other |work=
aliases (website, etc) exist primarily to give editors something to argue about. ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- CharlesShirley ( talk) 02:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding this edit, who are you referring to that gave the reason for removing this text as "removing"? I certainly had not given that as a reason, and was not the reason I did so. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know what happened there. Editing on my mobile and must have misclicked along the way. Pipsally ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that in this edit [3] you cut a bit about the recently disclosed details of POTUS condition being far worse than the contemporaneouos messaging. I think that made clear that "later revaled" meant MUCH later. Is there some way you could add some words that retain the meaning. Thanks for all your recent work on this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there!
It seems that you copied text from Turning Point USA into Turning Point UK. While you are welcome to reuse Wikipedia's content, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors.
When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is also good practice to place a properly formatted {{
Copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles.
You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Splitting.
Cheers! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x
Thank you for creating Turning Point UK.
User:MJL, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
While this was previously discussed in favour against including it as a second article, the close allowed for it to be re-created if later coverage occurred. Therefore, this is fine.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MJL}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You have violated the following editing restriction: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Self revert immediately. Also the significance for his life and Presidency is that the Accords were his major foreign policy success during his time as President and led to him getting recognition as a pro-Israel President. You know, literally what the sources all say?! Davefelmer ( talk) 15:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "paywalled" link, note that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library provides access to certain web resources, including several newspaper archives. These are invaluable for work on historical figures (as with my recent work expanding John T. Newton, and my previous effort writing Charles Erasmus Fenner), but can provide access to some print resources that are still hard to find online for contemporary figures. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I thought reftalks go at the bottom of sections. My bad. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump and golf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this... I noticed it because of this edit. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Donald Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Why did you accuse GiantSnowman of vandalism in this edit? I'm not even sure why you undid his edit at all.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –– FormalDude talk 06:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) –– FormalDude talk 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Milley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Reed.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Good evening, just thought I'd inform you that the recent David Rubenstein Show interview with General Milley provided a lot of background information on him. If possible, there might be some details worth adding to his article. SuperWIKI ( talk) 16:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
LemonJuice78 never responds to pings, either here or on his talk page, and I don't see any indication that attitudes have changed in response to any of these. See here for further detail. SuperWIKI ( talk) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, Continuum? I don't think it worked. He went straight back to worldcatting William Westmoreland when the ban was lifted. Also shoehorning the Milley selection as CJCS into A Very Stable Genius and I Alone Can Fix It. SuperWIKI ( talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, great. Pinging Acroterion and Neutrality. The addition to "Stable Genius" is unsourced. The book mentions Milley exactly once, in a sentence saying that Mattis's replacement Shanahan liked to bring Dunford or Milley to any substantive meetings. In "I alone", the editor moved one sentence from the section where it belongs into one where it doesn't and added a chunk of text to the "Contents" section that made it appear as if the book was mostly about how Milley allegedly got to be CJCoS. Westmoreland: I don't have the time right now to compare before and after Juice's editing but I will, and I'll get ahold of Sorley to see if the book is a source for any of the edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's the list I have so far (from most recent edits to earliest). Some of these may be relevant and only require condensation of image captions, fixing citations and complying with WP:SOB standards:
SuperWIKI ( talk) 09:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
When adding {{
citation needed}}
, that date is specified as "month year". There is no "day, ".
MB 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates where you are specifying a source (if there is a day the source was published).
MB 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Westmoreland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Trump Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that you restored the change from Arc to ARC that I made, which was in one of the sources. Did you notice that ARC are probably the initials of the founder Abraham Cinta? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
New JCS PDF got released with a new Milley section. Might have helpful info for you. SuperWIKI ( talk) 04:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments regarding Donald Trump and his Raspberry award. My concerns beyond the fact it was unsourced, would also be that it is a non-defining category. But that's something that is a concern about the cat as a whole, and across a great many of the BLP articles given it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Howdy. My apologies for any negative comments I made about MSNBC news (in general) or Rachel Maddow (in particular), at the Trump talkpage. I've learned minuets ago that this isn't allowed, even if it is with a tinge of humour. GoodDay ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Hyperbolick: Ben Garrison cartoon? No thanks, not on my talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't know why anybody's is defining the word "yappy", as being some kinda slur towards females. Any human being can be yappy. But that's not the issue I have with Trump's talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I see you were adding a bunch of citations for a section on Turning Point USA, "false claims about Covid 19", that information was pertaining strictly to Turning Point Action which is a different non-profit organization than Turning Point USA. By law they are actually different types of non-profits. It can be a bit confusing, however Turning Point Action has its own page now. I am going to just paste that information from Turing Point USA onto the TP-Action page. Just wanted to give you a heads up if you see any other content that is being wrongly classified on Turning Point USA's page about Turning point Action. MaximusEditor ( talk) 23:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Hi, I saw you removed my citation of The Daily with an edit summary of "A podcast as a source?" I will note that {{ Cite podcast}} has 2,907 transclusions at present, including to medical articles like vasectomy which are supposed to have some of the best sourcing in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that it is a podcast does not make it unreliable per se. Just like any form of media (whether audio visual or print) it is the source itself that is either reliable or unreliable, not the format.
Regarding this specific podcast, it is produced by The New York Times, and I would argue is as reliable as any of their journalism (Green on WP:RSP). Admittedly, its content would largely fall in the opinion/analysis realm, which can be biased. In this particular episode Michael Babaro interviews Shane Goldmacher, who wrote one of the other articles I cited in that paragraph, about the other article. So it's not that important to cite the podcast as everything is supported by the other article too, but in the spirit of WP:SWYGT I was citing both. Besides, some things are easier to understand in the audio medium, while others are easier in the written medium.
I'm not going to make a huge deal about insisting on citing this particular podcast in this particular article when the other sources cited support all the content without it. But I wanted to say, "yes, a podcast as a source, what's wrong with that?" and give my analysis that this specific podcast should be treated like other content produced by the New York Times. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, don't you think that you may have overreacted a bit? I agree with Valjean about the civility issue, and Mhawk, who's not used to the flaring tempers on Donald Trump, sounds reasonable enough. So maybe talk it out? The contentious parts of the close have been fixed ( here and here). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Consensus item 58 has multiple errors, which I can't fix as unregistered. Cosmetically, the period following "58" is missing. More seriously, both links are broken. The first has an extraneous "|" at the end, the second needs retargeting to the archive page. Can you handle this? 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC) On second look, both links need to be converted from external link to wikilink. 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 02:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1097270656
My apologies, I thought he had revered you, and you were revering him back You clearly did not violate 24hr BRD. Fbifriday ( talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that needs to be quoted, especially since the person/entity making the quote is not named. It'd be like writing Donald Trump was "President of the United States". 331dot ( talk) 13:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me just clarify, I'm not here to yell at you or anything, I just figured it would be better to settle this with you on your page instead of engaging in an edit war over something relatively small. Honestly though, I'm not sure I can agree with you on Cuomo's comments being relatively insignificant in this case. Yes he is not a sitting member of his party, but he's also much higher profile as a public figure than most other of the individuals listed in reactions already and was very recently running one of the country's largest states. Is his reaction really less significant than those made by commentators, or some of the Republicans that are also no longer office holders listed? For example, is him not being an active member of the party make his comments more important than those made by Sabatini, Oz, Taub, etc? I would tend to believe these comments have had much less impact on the public discourse in regards to the raid than Cuomo's have. DarkSide830 ( talk) 17:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Why are you changing CNN.com URLs to edition.CNN.com URLs at Donald Trump, please? Bsherr ( talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I always keep my browsers and macOS current. You didn’t answer my question where the MOS (or other WP guidelines) say that we should use www, which is the top-level url
. For example, you changed the url
with index to the url
www, and both end up at the edition url with index. In this case, the www url is 14 characters shorter, so that’s a plus. I just tried the two www urls again that resulted in the error msg yesterday and got the edition.cnn web page on Firefox and Safari, same browser and OS versions. Whatever caused that glitch yesterday seems to have fixed itself, and, no, there were no automatic overnight updates. I unplug everything when I'm not using the equipment.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond J. Dearie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It looks like part of your comment belongs in another section. Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on successfully testing leadrefs at Donald Trump. So far they're working and accepted. Now about the invisible anchors under each section header.... See my essay for how they work. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
For advancing the state of the art. Andre 🚐 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Sliced bread two-point-oh.
This will reshape how we write leads and make editorial collaboration much more efficient. One of the stellar bright ideas in recent memory. Kudos. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks, Andrevan and SPECIFICO, but the brilliant heads were Valjean and the editor FKA Mandruss. I only take credit for chutzpah to implement in Donald Trump, no less, and tweaking the details. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Donald Trump#Squigglies, throughout the page. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the effect of multi-citation lead text is equivalent to that of scare quotes. The presence of multiple citations for a straightforward assertion or a single word casts doubt on the lead text. This is why the section pointers need to be promoted as best practice. The emergent squiggly denialism appears to confirm that. Maybe find a cuter symbol than the weird vertical squiggly? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Testing
Which one is the least discrete and functional? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
A simple target symbol like two concentric rings and a center dot would be great since our symbols link to specific targets in the body but WP doesn’t have one, AFAIK. The section symbol/silcrow seems the best choice to me and, if and when added to the MOS as an option, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But shouldn’t we be discussing this on the DT talk page, with the view of taking this WP wide in the future? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, I think we may have been talking at cross purposes. These are leadrefs linking to individual citation refnames in the body, right? {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}}, {{User:Andrevan/Numbered Leadref|2}}, {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}} {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Izzard|3}}, {{User:Andrevan/Sectionref|Bacon_Fried_Artisanal_Snack_Chips|4}} Probably Valjean's original essay intention? I thought we had moved on to linking to the headings of the pertinent body sections. We'd still have (a bunch of) citations in the lead, whether they look like ⇣1 or [1], and we'd still have the Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In an RFC, you'll also need to make the argument for in-page section linking. Along with what type of symbols you want to introduce. GoodDay ( talk) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Please enable your email. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your work in improving the Donald Trump bio! Cessaune [talk] 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
About [10]: the Visual Editor does that without asking. There was no devious plan to sneak spaces in without anyone noticing. Best, DFlhb ( talk) 08:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This article may already need assistance from other editors, as you will see from the recent activities. -- 86Sedan 01:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I was never more than 99% retired. I consider my recent activity at Trump an anomaly or aberration. I may decide to dive back in if he gets re-elected. Or I may not.
Number 34 reached the consensus it did without your additional information. I suspect it would survive a challenge that she is Czech.
I suppose you could make the challenge and then counter yourself with the additional information, pinging the participants in the original discussion. Upon affirmation of 34, you could then add it to the entry. But that would look really weird and you'd have alotta splainin to do. I wouldn't do it.
I didn't get your reference to JFG. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Her article states that her father was Czech and her mother was Austrian; there is nothing Slovak in her lineage.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to say that, the more I've thought about it, the more I've thought your battery & defamation suggestion was a really good attempt at a compromise. I still wouldn't support it as my first choice, but I wanted to commend you for trying to find a compromise version! As I said on the page, I expect we're headed to an RFC (we'll see!) but either way if you're around I'm looking forward to working with you more.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your sharp eye in catching the close paraphrasing of Britannica on Ron DeSantis. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) |
SPECIFICO, sorry I missed the boat but, looking at the numbers, my vote wouldn’t have mattered. Went to the page yesterday to add my two cents worth, only to find what looked like an RfC closing. Don’t admins usually vote on these things? First time I’ve seen one end like this. One day down, 29 to go, right? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can you please point to the "several" discussions of SCOTUS names inclusion in Donald Trump lead? I could only find two, one from 2018 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_84#Gorsuch_appointment_in_the_lead), which is outdated, and the other one from 2021 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_137#Language_to_describe_judiial_appointments) where the consensus, if we actually take into consideration the arguments rather than the votes, leaned toward inclusion based on precedent and provided sources (courtesy ping @ Starship.paint @ Neutrality @ MelanieN)
Are there more discussions that I may have missed? It seems that, more than anything, you reverted my original inclusion of SCOTUS names based on your own preference. You are correct in that I should have technically sought consensus on talk page, but my last edit was over two weeks ago and I thought this was constructive enough of an edit where a detailed edit summary would suffice.
More importantly, and given that you had a clear preference for not including the names in the lead and that you had reverted my earlier edit, I don't think you should be claiming
WP:BRDR violation in this case. In other words, it seems to me you used the rule to remove something you simply did not like, rather than following
WP:AGF which is encouraged in
WP:BRDR (People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
); you could have easily taken it to the talk page itself, which you never did. Thanks,
Ppt91
talk 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
To whom it may concern. The recent attempt to impersonate me was unsuccessful. As for the current attacks [11], [12], [13], [14] by various IP addresses, listen very carefully, I shall say zis only once: I won’t respond to general allegations of violations of WP rules, and I’ll delete any such allegations from my talk page. Specify the edit(s) and the rule(s), and I’ll take a look at my alleged misbehavior and rectify it, if necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Good day @ Space4Time3Continuum2x i would like to seek your assistance on the review and approval of Qing Madi page. Thank You.
Tobiladun ( talk) 12:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Trimming articles can get tiring, thanks for making Donald J. Trump more readable! - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
The Donald Trump Barnstar | ||
For all of your hard work maintaining a busy challenging article in
Donald Trump; I have noticed your efforts.
Best, 2601:204:C901:B740:40DB:1A86:8B23:E4D0 ( talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
Yes, WP:NFC#UUI #6 most emphatically does apply. We've done this innumerable times on this project where an iconic image gets used all over the project, it gets removed from all but the main article where the image is the focus of the article, people fight to get it used elsewhere, and it ends up not being used elsewhere after much debate. Please, let's not restart this again. If you wish to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, I invite you to discuss the issue at WT:NFC. In the meantime, please do not restore the image outside of Mug shot of Donald Trump. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: [15]
If I still cared, I'd have to disagree.
Cite web: "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template."
Another CS1 template:
Cite news: "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web."
Seems clear enough to my eyes. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
|work=
. Don't recall saying the news/web distinction is unimportant. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it's unimportant, but that's not sufficient reason to change from news to web. Particularly when the template docs read as they do. But I don't care. If it's important to you, I'm prepared to drop it. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Possibly living people, missing people, and dead people are not included here). We'll see how the wiki-lawyers feel about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
RE: attorney] - the lead lender represented the consortium in the negotiations. There were not 16 lawfirms at the negotiations. I think the prior text better represented the statement about the consortium's action and motivation. They were not splintered. The full NYT quote shows Pomerantz speaking for the group:
The banks could have easily toppled Mr. Trump into personal bankruptcy, “but we all agreed that he’d be better alive than dead,” said Alan Pomerantz, then head of the real estate department at Weil. “We needed him to help sell all of his assets, and the deal was that as he sold off more, we’d reduce his personal guarantee.”
Could you elaborate on your reason for removing the LA Times ref? Wallach was Trump's operative trying desperately to spin the news media and finagle some ongoing role for Trump with the new owners, who understood that he had run the place into the ground. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x. You added a reference befor "Williams 2004" to Clarence Thomas, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 12:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For knowledge of the subject matter, fearless but judicious use of revert, commitment to process, and general competence at Donald Trump. I hope you'll see us through to the end of the Trump nightmare. I rarely give barnstars, so consider yourself privileged! ― Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So anyway. I understand there's a widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) that consensus can be established by a sequence of article reverts, with no "discussion" beyond edit summaries. I think that's supported somewhere in the PAGs, probably at WP:CONSENSUS. There's another widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) about de facto consensus and status quo ante, which is also probably supported somewhere in the PAGs. And yet another that contested edits should be removed pending consensus.
The first principle appears to be rooted in a desire to save time and reduce bureaucracy, nothing else.
I don't like the first one, and I wasn't comfortable with your Oct 12 re-revert after I became aware of it on the 22nd (I wasn't paying that much attention at first). After DeathTrain's challenge, I think the article should have been left alone pending talk page consensus to change it. Even if the challenge made no sense to you. Your editsum, "Because?", implied that DeathTrain needed to expound on their NPOV objection in their editsum, which seems entirely impractical to me. At that point, the only way DeathTrain could answer your question was by re-re-reverting with another editsum. And this could have gone on for another dozen or so reverts, potentially with other editors jumping into the consensus-by-reversion fray. Make that make sense. The "discussion" in the editsums doesn't keep it from looking a lot like edit warring. It wasn't DT's responsibility to start a TP discussion to answer your question; SPECIFICO was the one who made the initial change and it was SPECIFICO's responsibility to defend it.
After ten years, I still fail to see how the different principles can coexist, and that kind of thing (colliding widely-accepted principles) seems to happen a lot at en-wiki. How do you resolve this? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this edit of yours, and did not quite understand what "Consensus #60" refers to. Is there a list of consensuses relating to that article somewhere, or did you perhaps mean "consensus on talk archive #60", or something like that? - Ljleppan ( talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you know of any way, maybe a skin or script, to create a link on each talk page (or article) section heading line that can be clicked to take one back to the top of the page? Some websites provide such links. It would be nice here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you conclude that "repp" should be spelled with a single p? { https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Weaving&diff=1194337094&oldid=1194324386 edit]
I just happened to look at the 1970 version of Collier and she spelled it with two. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPAC.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
and "Ronald McDonald's signature would have had the same effect" had me laugh so loud I scared the cat. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Truth Social, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Milley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Steve Quinn (
talk) 05:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am User:Steve Quinn. I know you are not a new editor but I wanted to leave a message on your talk page. I thought welcoming you first would be best, even though you were probably welcomed awhile ago. The message I wish to leave is as follows and for your benefit. Everyone on the Seth Rich talk page gets one (including me):
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it my imagination, or is Macon edit warring to include the tabloid reference, violating ARBAP2 and 1RR? SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: He's put it back in three times now within a period of 24 hours 42 minutes, after it was removed by three different editors. For now, I've edited my "analysis" of Mr. Allen's piece of manure a little and added it to the discussion Herostratus started on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll see what happens; I can't believe that the other editors have read the same article. I suspect/hope they've been discussing The Telegraph in general terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Steve Quinn: Your post here arrived while I was busy on the noticeboard thing. Please, read my comments there. I still think the question shouldn't have been whether the Telegraph is a reliable source, but whether the article/author is. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Page is now under restrictions per Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Active_arbitration_remedies.
Though it is interesting sourced info, suggest you self-revert this edit here, and instead bring to talk page to discuss. Sagecandor ( talk) 08:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Sagecandor: I moved it to the "Commentary and Reactions - Former CIA Officers Section" before I saw your post. I'll remove it and take it to the Talk section. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Did you intend to be launching a formal RfC at Seth Rich talk? If so, I believe that you need to state a simple clear proposition, such as should your edit replace the previous text. I'm not sure whether this is needed, especially since no editor has yet disagreed with your edit, which seems to have obvious merit. Also if you wish this to be an RfC, there should be a separate "threaded discussion" section beneath the yes/no section of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you forgot to sign the following comment at Russian Interferences...
SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Mea culpa. Thanks, added it now. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambert C. Mims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uriah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
For the edit summary here. I realized that it was simple mistake, but that simple mistake completely flipped the meaning of the sentence. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
reacting to your comment on Talk:German Americans in the American Civil War. You know that there is an American Civil War taskforce on the Military History project, right? Also, if you´re interested in learning and discussing about the civil war with likeminded people outside of wiki I can only recommend to take a look or join us at Civil War Talk. Regards ... GELongstreet ( talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I voted! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your redirect of Klanbake to the internet meme article was inappropriate because that page does not mention the term. I've redirected it to the specific section about the meme in the Democratic convention article, so readers will go straight to the debunking of the term instead of having to hunt around for it. I agree the plain redirect to the convention page was wrong. Fences& Windows 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Fences and windows: Thanks. I just wanted to get rid of that redirect fast and couldn't think of anything better to do short of deleting the redirect altogether and copying the paragraph from the convention article which would also have been inappropriate. Is this what you did: #REDIRECT 1924 Democratic National Convention#"Klanbake" meme (for future reference)? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Since you edited Paul Erickson a bit, perhaps you'd be willing to weigh in on the pending disputes at Talk:Paul Erickson? We could use your input. Thanks in advance. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You just restored a challenged edit here
here. Specifically the removal of this "Trump's racially insensitive statements[270] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,"
. You also didn't leave an edit summary. I request that you restore this material until there is consensus to remove it, per the page editing restrictions.-
Mr
X 🖋 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
MrX I was actually partially undoing JFG's edit (and improving the structure while I was at it). Didn't notice that you had challenged his changes between the time I started writing and saved. I self-reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. You have violated the 1RR restriction with these
two
reverts.
Further, you violated the requirement for talk page consensus for challenged edits with
this revert. The image has been in the article for months and its removal was challenged, therefore talk page consensus is required to remove it.
As I see it you need to do two self-reverts. ―
Mandruss
☎ 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: Rodman - When and where was the removal of the picture challenged? There was a brief discussion before the removal, ending with So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
, the picture was removed, and two days later an editor reinserted it. Shouldn't that editor have discussed the reinsertion? As for the other two, I didn't regard changing the size of an image as a revert. I'll revert that for now and wait for your response on Rodman.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I still think the original removal was the challenge- I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit.
Your comments, here and here, inspired me into doing a bit of research as to why using time/date stamps on a busy TP doesn't work as well as providing the actual diffs, so I asked the experts and thought it might prove helpful to share it with you. Atsme 📞 📧 18:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
This has now been closed, and as far as I can tell your proposed language was the best most recent version and should be placed in the article. Seems like you would be best equipped to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Thanks for the vote of confidence :). There hasn't been any reaction to my last proposal (version D, substituting "improper entry" for "unlawfully crossing") so I don't feel all that anointed. When I have more time than right now, I'll try to come up with a version without the "factual inaccuracies" Neutrality pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Continued from Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts, since the usual Trump apologists have shut down a discussion they don't like. They often do this to head off the development of a consensus for an article.
Your comment:
Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar" | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not." [1] David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...." [2] Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly:
On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead." [4] Three days later he wrote: Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism, By Gerard Baker, Jan. 4, 2017
Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing". [6] He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before." [7] Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty — the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...." [8] Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'" [8] Adrienne LaFrance: Calling Out a Presidential Lie [9] The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited. [4]
Don't Call Trump a Liar—He Doesn't Even Care About the Truth, Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017
"Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to.
|
An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 ( talk) 23:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I voted! Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That huge chunk of "achievements" text on the Chao page is most likely by COI accounts who are adding flattering content about here. It should just be removed in full. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: [2]
It's not a really big deal, but since you said "per Mandruss" I wanted to make sure you understood that my preference was to accept the duplicate and keep the bundle at 6. If you understand that and disagree, I defer to your judgment. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I voted! (Almost missed the deadline this year.) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 10 months overdue. Enjoy! ― Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Biden says he doesn't remember Reade, not doesn't remember her working for him, see citation. We also know the year, and who's who. Did you mean this summary for something else, POV-related? InedibleHulk ( talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, long talk page so I can’t find the ping on mobile. Only to the image. The captain can be worked out through the normal editing and talk page process. Likely doesn’t need an RfC :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donald J. Trump posing with Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2020.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donald J. Trump posing with Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2020.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's the full article in an easier link without all the ads and videos. It's still not substantial imo but figured you'd want to see it. Praxidicae ( talk) 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, the URL for The Brooklyn Daily Eagle is incorrect and duplicates that of the preceding cite. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you props for the TPUSA work. It's a mess of an article but I think you are doing a really good job of pushing the content towards impartial presentation. I think many confuse trying to be impartial with outright whitewashing. Anyway, thumbs up. Springee ( talk) 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
My honors were misstated on a book jacket the other way, repeated endlessly wrong until my next book was published. Otherwise excellent projection on the Ivanka Trump talk page as if you speak for the honors classes of the country. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 ( talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Re
this edit, why? |newspaper=
is an alias of |work=
, so there is no difference in what readers see. What is the benefit of changing the coding at a cost of 1,111 bytes? ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
|newspaper=
for web-based newspapers, necessarily, and one could hold the opinion that it should only be used for paper newspapers. That and the other |work=
aliases (website, etc) exist primarily to give editors something to argue about. ―
Mandruss
☎ 10:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- CharlesShirley ( talk) 02:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding this edit, who are you referring to that gave the reason for removing this text as "removing"? I certainly had not given that as a reason, and was not the reason I did so. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know what happened there. Editing on my mobile and must have misclicked along the way. Pipsally ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that in this edit [3] you cut a bit about the recently disclosed details of POTUS condition being far worse than the contemporaneouos messaging. I think that made clear that "later revaled" meant MUCH later. Is there some way you could add some words that retain the meaning. Thanks for all your recent work on this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there!
It seems that you copied text from Turning Point USA into Turning Point UK. While you are welcome to reuse Wikipedia's content, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors.
When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is also good practice to place a properly formatted {{
Copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles.
You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Splitting.
Cheers! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x
Thank you for creating Turning Point UK.
User:MJL, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
While this was previously discussed in favour against including it as a second article, the close allowed for it to be re-created if later coverage occurred. Therefore, this is fine.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MJL}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
– MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You have violated the following editing restriction: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Self revert immediately. Also the significance for his life and Presidency is that the Accords were his major foreign policy success during his time as President and led to him getting recognition as a pro-Israel President. You know, literally what the sources all say?! Davefelmer ( talk) 15:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "paywalled" link, note that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library provides access to certain web resources, including several newspaper archives. These are invaluable for work on historical figures (as with my recent work expanding John T. Newton, and my previous effort writing Charles Erasmus Fenner), but can provide access to some print resources that are still hard to find online for contemporary figures. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I thought reftalks go at the bottom of sections. My bad. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump and golf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this... I noticed it because of this edit. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Donald Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 ( talk) 12:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Why did you accuse GiantSnowman of vandalism in this edit? I'm not even sure why you undid his edit at all.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –– FormalDude talk 06:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) –– FormalDude talk 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Milley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Reed.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Good evening, just thought I'd inform you that the recent David Rubenstein Show interview with General Milley provided a lot of background information on him. If possible, there might be some details worth adding to his article. SuperWIKI ( talk) 16:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
LemonJuice78 never responds to pings, either here or on his talk page, and I don't see any indication that attitudes have changed in response to any of these. See here for further detail. SuperWIKI ( talk) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ummm, Continuum? I don't think it worked. He went straight back to worldcatting William Westmoreland when the ban was lifted. Also shoehorning the Milley selection as CJCS into A Very Stable Genius and I Alone Can Fix It. SuperWIKI ( talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, great. Pinging Acroterion and Neutrality. The addition to "Stable Genius" is unsourced. The book mentions Milley exactly once, in a sentence saying that Mattis's replacement Shanahan liked to bring Dunford or Milley to any substantive meetings. In "I alone", the editor moved one sentence from the section where it belongs into one where it doesn't and added a chunk of text to the "Contents" section that made it appear as if the book was mostly about how Milley allegedly got to be CJCoS. Westmoreland: I don't have the time right now to compare before and after Juice's editing but I will, and I'll get ahold of Sorley to see if the book is a source for any of the edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's the list I have so far (from most recent edits to earliest). Some of these may be relevant and only require condensation of image captions, fixing citations and complying with WP:SOB standards:
SuperWIKI ( talk) 09:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
When adding {{
citation needed}}
, that date is specified as "month year". There is no "day, ".
MB 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates where you are specifying a source (if there is a day the source was published).
MB 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Westmoreland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Trump Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that you restored the change from Arc to ARC that I made, which was in one of the sources. Did you notice that ARC are probably the initials of the founder Abraham Cinta? Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
New JCS PDF got released with a new Milley section. Might have helpful info for you. SuperWIKI ( talk) 04:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your comments regarding Donald Trump and his Raspberry award. My concerns beyond the fact it was unsourced, would also be that it is a non-defining category. But that's something that is a concern about the cat as a whole, and across a great many of the BLP articles given it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Howdy. My apologies for any negative comments I made about MSNBC news (in general) or Rachel Maddow (in particular), at the Trump talkpage. I've learned minuets ago that this isn't allowed, even if it is with a tinge of humour. GoodDay ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Hyperbolick: Ben Garrison cartoon? No thanks, not on my talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't know why anybody's is defining the word "yappy", as being some kinda slur towards females. Any human being can be yappy. But that's not the issue I have with Trump's talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I see you were adding a bunch of citations for a section on Turning Point USA, "false claims about Covid 19", that information was pertaining strictly to Turning Point Action which is a different non-profit organization than Turning Point USA. By law they are actually different types of non-profits. It can be a bit confusing, however Turning Point Action has its own page now. I am going to just paste that information from Turing Point USA onto the TP-Action page. Just wanted to give you a heads up if you see any other content that is being wrongly classified on Turning Point USA's page about Turning point Action. MaximusEditor ( talk) 23:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Hi, I saw you removed my citation of The Daily with an edit summary of "A podcast as a source?" I will note that {{ Cite podcast}} has 2,907 transclusions at present, including to medical articles like vasectomy which are supposed to have some of the best sourcing in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that it is a podcast does not make it unreliable per se. Just like any form of media (whether audio visual or print) it is the source itself that is either reliable or unreliable, not the format.
Regarding this specific podcast, it is produced by The New York Times, and I would argue is as reliable as any of their journalism (Green on WP:RSP). Admittedly, its content would largely fall in the opinion/analysis realm, which can be biased. In this particular episode Michael Babaro interviews Shane Goldmacher, who wrote one of the other articles I cited in that paragraph, about the other article. So it's not that important to cite the podcast as everything is supported by the other article too, but in the spirit of WP:SWYGT I was citing both. Besides, some things are easier to understand in the audio medium, while others are easier in the written medium.
I'm not going to make a huge deal about insisting on citing this particular podcast in this particular article when the other sources cited support all the content without it. But I wanted to say, "yes, a podcast as a source, what's wrong with that?" and give my analysis that this specific podcast should be treated like other content produced by the New York Times. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, don't you think that you may have overreacted a bit? I agree with Valjean about the civility issue, and Mhawk, who's not used to the flaring tempers on Donald Trump, sounds reasonable enough. So maybe talk it out? The contentious parts of the close have been fixed ( here and here). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Consensus item 58 has multiple errors, which I can't fix as unregistered. Cosmetically, the period following "58" is missing. More seriously, both links are broken. The first has an extraneous "|" at the end, the second needs retargeting to the archive page. Can you handle this? 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC) On second look, both links need to be converted from external link to wikilink. 68.97.42.64 ( talk) 02:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1097270656
My apologies, I thought he had revered you, and you were revering him back You clearly did not violate 24hr BRD. Fbifriday ( talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that needs to be quoted, especially since the person/entity making the quote is not named. It'd be like writing Donald Trump was "President of the United States". 331dot ( talk) 13:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me just clarify, I'm not here to yell at you or anything, I just figured it would be better to settle this with you on your page instead of engaging in an edit war over something relatively small. Honestly though, I'm not sure I can agree with you on Cuomo's comments being relatively insignificant in this case. Yes he is not a sitting member of his party, but he's also much higher profile as a public figure than most other of the individuals listed in reactions already and was very recently running one of the country's largest states. Is his reaction really less significant than those made by commentators, or some of the Republicans that are also no longer office holders listed? For example, is him not being an active member of the party make his comments more important than those made by Sabatini, Oz, Taub, etc? I would tend to believe these comments have had much less impact on the public discourse in regards to the raid than Cuomo's have. DarkSide830 ( talk) 17:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Why are you changing CNN.com URLs to edition.CNN.com URLs at Donald Trump, please? Bsherr ( talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I always keep my browsers and macOS current. You didn’t answer my question where the MOS (or other WP guidelines) say that we should use www, which is the top-level url
. For example, you changed the url
with index to the url
www, and both end up at the edition url with index. In this case, the www url is 14 characters shorter, so that’s a plus. I just tried the two www urls again that resulted in the error msg yesterday and got the edition.cnn web page on Firefox and Safari, same browser and OS versions. Whatever caused that glitch yesterday seems to have fixed itself, and, no, there were no automatic overnight updates. I unplug everything when I'm not using the equipment.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 10:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond J. Dearie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It looks like part of your comment belongs in another section. Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on successfully testing leadrefs at Donald Trump. So far they're working and accepted. Now about the invisible anchors under each section header.... See my essay for how they work. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
For advancing the state of the art. Andre 🚐 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
Sliced bread two-point-oh.
This will reshape how we write leads and make editorial collaboration much more efficient. One of the stellar bright ideas in recent memory. Kudos. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks, Andrevan and SPECIFICO, but the brilliant heads were Valjean and the editor FKA Mandruss. I only take credit for chutzpah to implement in Donald Trump, no less, and tweaking the details. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Donald Trump#Squigglies, throughout the page. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the effect of multi-citation lead text is equivalent to that of scare quotes. The presence of multiple citations for a straightforward assertion or a single word casts doubt on the lead text. This is why the section pointers need to be promoted as best practice. The emergent squiggly denialism appears to confirm that. Maybe find a cuter symbol than the weird vertical squiggly? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Testing
Which one is the least discrete and functional? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
A simple target symbol like two concentric rings and a center dot would be great since our symbols link to specific targets in the body but WP doesn’t have one, AFAIK. The section symbol/silcrow seems the best choice to me and, if and when added to the MOS as an option, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But shouldn’t we be discussing this on the DT talk page, with the view of taking this WP wide in the future? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, I think we may have been talking at cross purposes. These are leadrefs linking to individual citation refnames in the body, right? {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}}, {{User:Andrevan/Numbered Leadref|2}}, {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}} {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Izzard|3}}, {{User:Andrevan/Sectionref|Bacon_Fried_Artisanal_Snack_Chips|4}} Probably Valjean's original essay intention? I thought we had moved on to linking to the headings of the pertinent body sections. We'd still have (a bunch of) citations in the lead, whether they look like ⇣1 or [1], and we'd still have the Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
In an RFC, you'll also need to make the argument for in-page section linking. Along with what type of symbols you want to introduce. GoodDay ( talk) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Please enable your email. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For your work in improving the Donald Trump bio! Cessaune [talk] 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
About [10]: the Visual Editor does that without asking. There was no devious plan to sneak spaces in without anyone noticing. Best, DFlhb ( talk) 08:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This article may already need assistance from other editors, as you will see from the recent activities. -- 86Sedan 01:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I was never more than 99% retired. I consider my recent activity at Trump an anomaly or aberration. I may decide to dive back in if he gets re-elected. Or I may not.
Number 34 reached the consensus it did without your additional information. I suspect it would survive a challenge that she is Czech.
I suppose you could make the challenge and then counter yourself with the additional information, pinging the participants in the original discussion. Upon affirmation of 34, you could then add it to the entry. But that would look really weird and you'd have alotta splainin to do. I wouldn't do it.
I didn't get your reference to JFG. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Her article states that her father was Czech and her mother was Austrian; there is nothing Slovak in her lineage.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to say that, the more I've thought about it, the more I've thought your battery & defamation suggestion was a really good attempt at a compromise. I still wouldn't support it as my first choice, but I wanted to commend you for trying to find a compromise version! As I said on the page, I expect we're headed to an RFC (we'll see!) but either way if you're around I'm looking forward to working with you more.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your sharp eye in catching the close paraphrasing of Britannica on Ron DeSantis. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) |
SPECIFICO, sorry I missed the boat but, looking at the numbers, my vote wouldn’t have mattered. Went to the page yesterday to add my two cents worth, only to find what looked like an RfC closing. Don’t admins usually vote on these things? First time I’ve seen one end like this. One day down, 29 to go, right? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can you please point to the "several" discussions of SCOTUS names inclusion in Donald Trump lead? I could only find two, one from 2018 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_84#Gorsuch_appointment_in_the_lead), which is outdated, and the other one from 2021 ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_137#Language_to_describe_judiial_appointments) where the consensus, if we actually take into consideration the arguments rather than the votes, leaned toward inclusion based on precedent and provided sources (courtesy ping @ Starship.paint @ Neutrality @ MelanieN)
Are there more discussions that I may have missed? It seems that, more than anything, you reverted my original inclusion of SCOTUS names based on your own preference. You are correct in that I should have technically sought consensus on talk page, but my last edit was over two weeks ago and I thought this was constructive enough of an edit where a detailed edit summary would suffice.
More importantly, and given that you had a clear preference for not including the names in the lead and that you had reverted my earlier edit, I don't think you should be claiming
WP:BRDR violation in this case. In other words, it seems to me you used the rule to remove something you simply did not like, rather than following
WP:AGF which is encouraged in
WP:BRDR (People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.
); you could have easily taken it to the talk page itself, which you never did. Thanks,
Ppt91
talk 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
To whom it may concern. The recent attempt to impersonate me was unsuccessful. As for the current attacks [11], [12], [13], [14] by various IP addresses, listen very carefully, I shall say zis only once: I won’t respond to general allegations of violations of WP rules, and I’ll delete any such allegations from my talk page. Specify the edit(s) and the rule(s), and I’ll take a look at my alleged misbehavior and rectify it, if necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Good day @ Space4Time3Continuum2x i would like to seek your assistance on the review and approval of Qing Madi page. Thank You.
Tobiladun ( talk) 12:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Trimming articles can get tiring, thanks for making Donald J. Trump more readable! - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
The Donald Trump Barnstar | ||
For all of your hard work maintaining a busy challenging article in
Donald Trump; I have noticed your efforts.
Best, 2601:204:C901:B740:40DB:1A86:8B23:E4D0 ( talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
Yes, WP:NFC#UUI #6 most emphatically does apply. We've done this innumerable times on this project where an iconic image gets used all over the project, it gets removed from all but the main article where the image is the focus of the article, people fight to get it used elsewhere, and it ends up not being used elsewhere after much debate. Please, let's not restart this again. If you wish to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, I invite you to discuss the issue at WT:NFC. In the meantime, please do not restore the image outside of Mug shot of Donald Trump. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: [15]
If I still cared, I'd have to disagree.
Cite web: "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template."
Another CS1 template:
Cite news: "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web."
Seems clear enough to my eyes. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
|work=
. Don't recall saying the news/web distinction is unimportant. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it's unimportant, but that's not sufficient reason to change from news to web. Particularly when the template docs read as they do. But I don't care. If it's important to you, I'm prepared to drop it. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Possibly living people, missing people, and dead people are not included here). We'll see how the wiki-lawyers feel about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
RE: attorney] - the lead lender represented the consortium in the negotiations. There were not 16 lawfirms at the negotiations. I think the prior text better represented the statement about the consortium's action and motivation. They were not splintered. The full NYT quote shows Pomerantz speaking for the group:
The banks could have easily toppled Mr. Trump into personal bankruptcy, “but we all agreed that he’d be better alive than dead,” said Alan Pomerantz, then head of the real estate department at Weil. “We needed him to help sell all of his assets, and the deal was that as he sold off more, we’d reduce his personal guarantee.”
Could you elaborate on your reason for removing the LA Times ref? Wallach was Trump's operative trying desperately to spin the news media and finagle some ongoing role for Trump with the new owners, who understood that he had run the place into the ground. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Space4Time3Continuum2x. You added a reference befor "Williams 2004" to Clarence Thomas, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 12:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For knowledge of the subject matter, fearless but judicious use of revert, commitment to process, and general competence at Donald Trump. I hope you'll see us through to the end of the Trump nightmare. I rarely give barnstars, so consider yourself privileged! ― Mandruss ☎ 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
So anyway. I understand there's a widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) that consensus can be established by a sequence of article reverts, with no "discussion" beyond edit summaries. I think that's supported somewhere in the PAGs, probably at WP:CONSENSUS. There's another widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) about de facto consensus and status quo ante, which is also probably supported somewhere in the PAGs. And yet another that contested edits should be removed pending consensus.
The first principle appears to be rooted in a desire to save time and reduce bureaucracy, nothing else.
I don't like the first one, and I wasn't comfortable with your Oct 12 re-revert after I became aware of it on the 22nd (I wasn't paying that much attention at first). After DeathTrain's challenge, I think the article should have been left alone pending talk page consensus to change it. Even if the challenge made no sense to you. Your editsum, "Because?", implied that DeathTrain needed to expound on their NPOV objection in their editsum, which seems entirely impractical to me. At that point, the only way DeathTrain could answer your question was by re-re-reverting with another editsum. And this could have gone on for another dozen or so reverts, potentially with other editors jumping into the consensus-by-reversion fray. Make that make sense. The "discussion" in the editsums doesn't keep it from looking a lot like edit warring. It wasn't DT's responsibility to start a TP discussion to answer your question; SPECIFICO was the one who made the initial change and it was SPECIFICO's responsibility to defend it.
After ten years, I still fail to see how the different principles can coexist, and that kind of thing (colliding widely-accepted principles) seems to happen a lot at en-wiki. How do you resolve this? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this edit of yours, and did not quite understand what "Consensus #60" refers to. Is there a list of consensuses relating to that article somewhere, or did you perhaps mean "consensus on talk archive #60", or something like that? - Ljleppan ( talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you know of any way, maybe a skin or script, to create a link on each talk page (or article) section heading line that can be clicked to take one back to the top of the page? Some websites provide such links. It would be nice here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you conclude that "repp" should be spelled with a single p? { https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Weaving&diff=1194337094&oldid=1194324386 edit]
I just happened to look at the 1970 version of Collier and she spelled it with two. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPAC.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
and "Ronald McDonald's signature would have had the same effect" had me laugh so loud I scared the cat. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Truth Social, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Milley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)