This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 22
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
These refs are only used in the lead, and have been co-opted for conclusions in the future. That's wrong, as they can only be used for when they were said. They also need attribution and use in the body of the article.
As of February 2018[update], the dossier's allegations of collusion have not been corroborated.
^Prokop, Andrew (December 28, 2017). "What we learned about Trump, Russia, and collusion in 2017". Vox. Retrieved February 11, 2018. Yet as 2017 winds down, there is still no clear answer to the central question at the heart of the probe: Did Trump's team collude with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign?...[T]here are the darker possibilities of the sort alleged in the salacious and mostly uncorroborated Steele dossier.
Deserves response...creation process of List
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A comment in a "merge" RfC deserves some response, but obviously not in the RfC, since it's off-topic (it's not an AfD):
WP:POV - this lacks WP:BALANCE, in sources used and in lack of the significant coverage on widespread handling as a 'dodgy' item and of right-wing crowing over items discredited, plus it's nature of the bulk being one-sided allegations with occasional flawed wording for what is presented. (Really this article should either be tagged on concerns or moved to draft space for work.) For example, in sources I'll note that there is Mother Jones and Vanity Fair and Buzzfeed ... but nothing from the much-larger/prominent FoxNews.
I'll likely respond in a separate section when I have more time.
I have always been upfront about the creation process for the article, and have explained how and why I chose the 42 (originally many more) RS used.
The references exist to document the existence and wording of the allegations. Period. They are not chosen for their POV on the subject. Some were originally chosen because they "also" had interesting commentary, but those comments are now moved to the main article. Any RS can be used to document the "existence" of an allegation, and since some of these allegations are serious (one is "salacious"), BLP's "WP:PUBLICFIGURE" applies, so they must be documented by multiple RS. Done
If I had chosen to only use the dossier itself, IOW to perform OR, I could have listed far more allegations, but I followed our policies and only listed those allegations which had received attention in multiple RS. That's what we are supposed to do.
Since the objection mentions FoxNews as a source, I could also do that. Although their strong GOP bias renders them mostly unusable for accuracy (too much spin and outright proven lies) on the subject of the dossier (for commentary they might still have their place, since bias is not alone a reason to exclude a source), they might still be usable for documenting the existence of some allegations. I'm sure they have done that, but not nearly as much as most other sources, because that would be against their mission, which is to deny and deflect. They don't want their viewers to know that some of the allegations exist. Anything negative about the GOP or Trump is generally buried or ignored.
Since the objector thinks the lack of FoxNews refs is a problem, I'll start searching for them. Then I may respond on the talk page. Help in finding those FoxNews sources would be appreciated.
Drive-by criticism, especially non-specific, on talk pages, RfCs, and AfDs is unhelpful. People who just criticize, without constructively contributing on talk pages and actually trying to improve articles, are a dime-a-dozen here, and they are disruptive editors. For the purposes of that article they are WP:NOTHERE, and sometimes topic bans should be used to stop their drive-by disruptions. If they don't have something constructive to say or do, then they should stay away. Disagreement can be constructive, but it's often too general to be anything other than irritating bitching. Constructive criticism is different and welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
FoxNews is used four times in the main article, twice for commentary. None of them document allegations:[1][2][3][4]
Adding - take a look at Trump–Russia_dossier#Reactions to specific allegations - more proof that as long as the primary was published by secondary sources, we can use a summary of key points RS used. The dossier probably includes blatant SYNTH to gather the commentary...I haven't checked it. No deadline. Ironic how the article is about Trump's views but we can't use his views? Ha!
...there is an entire article that was built on the same premise for what some are now claiming is OR regarding your proposal. Selecting a relevant quote that was published in a secondary source is indeed acceptable and compliant with our PAGs. WP:OR clearly states: sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement.It is not OR, it is NPOV as it will be in-text attribution...and it was published in a secondary source. There is absolutely no valid reason it can't be used...
MrX, this entire article is cherrypicked to fit a particular POV which is why so many editors have challenged it. To now say inclusion of Trump's own views on racism is not allowed because it is "cherrypicked" is a bit of a stretch. A statement that is used for its relevancy is not cherrypicked. There is no PAG that supports what you're saying. That's what we do - we use editorial judgment to determine what is relevant/encyclopedic for inclusion in an article and for you to say a relevant statement in a US president's inaugural speech is cherrypicking is well...absurd.
This is simply false, and it's even worse because this has been debunked repeatedly and the creation process and reasoning explained in detail. The irony is that above she describes and approves of the very process used.
There is no evidence of any SYNTH violation or that there were any "cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative". SMH. The allegations are what they are, and the only ones used were those which were commented on in RS, never any OR or POV choosing. The RS dictated which ones to pick. Their POV is what it is. I have no choice or influence on that.
Sorry - the dissecting was done by EuroNews which published "Key quotes from Donald Trump's inauguration speech" and did some extraction from Donald Trump’s first speech as US president. We certainly can use parts of what they published as a secondary source that fits into the context of this narrative. You might want to take a look at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations and Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations, which was published in its entirety in an unreliable source (BuzzFeed), and then with the use of SYNTH a separate list and a section in the main article were created using cherrypicked allegations that fit a particular POV narrative. What was proposed here is not SYNTH, it is editorial judgment that cites a RS and a relevant statement in the speech demonstrating Trump's views on race...and you are now trying to convince editors that doing so is noncompliant with policy? I suggest you cite the policy that supports your position because I say it does not. Trump's views belong in an article about Trump's views.
Atsme 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A coordinated effort to discredit or halt the investigation
How true, and much more than we at first realized. This "coordinated effort" goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together.
The Trump–Russia dossier ties this continuing and coordinated effort back to cooperation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and then alleges the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." It furthermore alleges that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership" to defeat "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON", and that there was a "Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON".
The proof of that collaboration is abundant. Nearly every member of the Trump administration was in repeated contacts with Russians, and repeatedly lied about it. Not only that, they were caught in electronic surveillance talking about it.
The micro-targeted election campaign involved a very closely coordinated teamwork involving Jared Kushner, Cambridge Analytica, Facebook's and Twitter's marketing departments, Russian hackers, and WikiLeaks (IOW Russian intelligence), all exploiting a well-developed GOP voter suppression machine which had a track record for successfully guaranteeing Republican victories, even when there were Democratic majorities. The system was nearly foolproof. Respect for democracy was totally gone. The successful election is the fruition of their efforts, and proof of the danger this cooperation poses to democracy and American freedoms. Fortunately they got busted. Now that corrupt system needs to be broken down.
Paul Wood, a subject expert, has plainly described this coordinated effort:
"This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated “bots”, then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US “news” sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.
The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.
“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”
This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.[1]
The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik coordination/conduit is very active. Note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up, but very little being spread by MSM. Serious news outlets usually reject fake news, but the fringe right-wing (and to a lesser degree the fringe left-wing) has been very open to spreading it.
Starting at the extreme fringes, conspiracy theory websites love this stuff. They have no crap filters and believe anything fed to them by Russians, as long as it supports their pro-Trump, anti-Clinton, agenda. InfoWars, WND (birther central), The Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge are unreliable sources which fall in this class.
Moving a tiny bit closer to center, Breitbart News, with its support of James O'Keefe, has actively supported and spread deceptively edited videos which are very misleading, and they have been busted and debunked.
Trump is friends with Breitbart's Steve Bannon, InfoWars's Alex Jones, and Fox News's Roger Ailes, and he believes their propaganda. He has no crap filters, and yet he's president. The Russian government has a clear line/conduit of misinformation feeding directly to the president, and it informs his tweets and policies.
The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the Gang of Eight members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. For them, it was more important to get Trump elected than to protect America. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too.
Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests.
This latest phase of collaboration started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to (secretly) plan the election with Russians back in 2013, and they have bragged, on TV, about helping him and about how the Russians elected the American president. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it.
Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into a defensive obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times!
So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? Yes, but still pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled "Trump-Russia cover-up operation".
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
OK, a few thoughts on the article. You have done a really good job; the introductory paragraphs in particular are well done. The only suggestion I would make in the section headings is to eliminate the separate section “Activated blackmail threat against Trump” and combine it into the preceding section “Kompromat on Trump”. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I can do that. I kept it separate because it's so significantly different than just "blackmailable" actions. It's a clear statement that the threat has been activated, but, on condition of continued cooperation, it's being held back. That's classic active blackmail. There is nothing passive about it. The axe is literally being held over his head....allegedly.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
DoneMelanieN, I also chose to combine two overlapping allegations which were intimately connected, and I added more RS coverage. RS have mentioned these two allegations together, so I have done the same. RS quote both of them and both mention blackmail, so I have literally taken the quotes and used them exactly as used by RS, and as found in the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe05:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So where do we stand on the discussion about merging it into the dossier article vs. keeping it separate? That discussion has pretty much died down; it was started 12 days ago and the last comment was four days ago. It is strongly leaning toward merge - most people seemed to think it would be more useful in the main article than in a separate article - but it is not in “snow” territory. I guess it doesn’t hurt anything to wait for more possible input. I’m not going to close it since I participated in the survey. And of course you shouldn’t either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It's actually 16 days ago, and the situation is stale. A snow close isn't necessary, but the consensus is pretty clear. It was also announced on the main article talk page, so I doubt we'll see any significant change. Take a look here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If you need any help, BR, let me know.. Thank you for your hard work, dedication and for being a good collaborator! Atsme📞📧15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please note you are at 4 reverts. Please self revert the last set of changes since we don't have consensus on the talk page. Springee (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Consecutive edits without any intervening edits count as one, so I'm at two. Besides, the latest is based on talk discussion, so I figured it was rock solid, and backed up by an even more rock solid source. Reverting that would be foolish. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe04:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth I count at least 4 non-consecutive edits in 24 hours. I'm not going to take this to 3RR but you aren't at 2 reverts, you may be at 5 in the last 24 hours. Springee (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Several of those edits were purely constructive and non-controversial. They weren't reverts. I did follow your suggestion and have now moved it to later in the lead. It does fit well there. Your comments did result in a better situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe
Gun control discretionary sanctions
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''
'''Please carefully read this information:'''
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|here]].
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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 the [[WP:HD|Help desk]] if you have any questions. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
ec... Okay, now I see what's going on. You do realize that Springee was edit warring much more than I? Not that edit warring is good. Also keep in mind that consecutive edits without any intervening edits by other editors count as one (even under DS), and many of my edits were completely unrelated to any controversial issues, but were totally constructive edits. So when I was at two, s/he was about to hit four. I wasn't aware that there were any DS there. It wasn't (and still not) on the talk page. I looked. I figured that normal editing applied. I didn't get close to 3RR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe07:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
AR-15 style rifle is on my watchpage and so I saw the series of edits you made. Some felt you violated 4RR and while you disagree, you were in fact revert-warring (4RR or not), so I figured you should know about these sanctions as your history shows you were not given this notice in the last year. Don't think of this as 'getting in your face', it's really more of a 'head's up'. Now you can avoid any future "concerns". - theWOLFchild07:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
FWIW, I wholly agree with your analysis on the Andrew McCabe talk page:
"I think a major part of the problem is an extreme interpretation of copyright violation taken in isolation from "fair use", which is very elastic. The two must be interpreted in relation to each other, and we should follow the same practices as major newspapers and magazines." and "With more important matters (and more important people and sources), longer exact quotes are justified, sometimes entire paragraphs. That's how fair use works in the real world, i.e. major newspapers and magazines. We should follow their practices."
Without a broad interpretation of fair use, modern journalism could not function, analysis of major, complex issues would be nigh impossible, large numbers of journalists would be out of work, and the vast bulk of WP content would need to be taken down. Copyright is enforced primarily to prevent people from profiting from the work of others, but WP has no profit motive, and hence most publishers would actually prefer that WP cite their work, as it drives traffic to their for-profit sites.
Agree. We're seeing an unnecessarily harsh and strict (mis?)interpretation that harms the editing environment and does not protect Wikipedia from an imagined danger (referring to minor instances). When the content has been reverted, there is no longer a copyright violation. I doubt that we get many requests from copyright holders to revdel content from the history, but that option is clearly described, with clear instructions for them. We'll do it if requested. Of course. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe19:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Soibangla, BullRangifer's comment above should not be taken as encouragement to repeat the same type of editing (and I don't think they meant it that way). If I see you doing so again then I will indefinitely block you. --NeilNtalk to me19:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand and accept what you're saying, but my edit was mischaracterized in multiple ways from the getgo, which may not be readily apparent from the CopyPatrol/Earwig excerpts that were previously posted here, but are more apparent if one were to read the actual WSJ article. The excerpts made it appear that I made a wholesale lift and drop of an entire paragraph, which I did not, and reading the WSJ article reveals this, while the output from CopyPatrol/Earwig may not. I do not appreciate being characterized as a plagiarizing copyright infringer. I really don't. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Good advice. I know you're really upset about this, and you may have been treated unfairly, but err on the side of caution. Copyright and BLP are two policies which are pretty strict, and rightly so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BullRangifer. If you have some particular article histories you want me to look at and re-assess, please let me know and I will do so. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa, will do. The incident I recall was a while ago, so I'm not going to dig it up. That would be quite a job, because I edit many different types of articles. At one point in time my watchlist had just over nine THOUSAND entries, most of them actually edited, and with no type of automation. All individual edits. I recently started over again and am at 692 right now. I'll have to keep it pared down. I keep three days (72 hrs.) of recent edits visible, so it's a long page.
While I have you "on the line", so to speak, I want to make it clear that I hold absolutely no animus against you. You do important work, which I respect very much. I just hope we can move a bit closer together, without sacrificing the basic need for dealing with copyvios.
Editors get hurt and deeply offended each time this happens, and some give up completely, and not just on the idea of Wikipedia. Most haven't deliberately done anything wrong. With the history gone, they are in a hopeless situation with no possibility for enlightenment or closure. When one's good faith efforts get trashed, desperation, hopelessness, and dark thoughts get traction. We do lose editors because of what happens here. I was very close during an ArbCom. I was ultimately vindicated, but it was one of the worst experiences of my life, and I've seen and experienced some really bad shit in my life. I'm 67. That's one reason my only weapon is small caliber and locked away. Editors need understanding and instruction. Wikipedia is complicated and huge, and the learning curve is steep. It takes time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe20:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification. Let it die.
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Can you be more specific on which arguments, with quotes and diffs, you meant in Special:Diff/828548968 when you said Many of the arguments against using it are unabashed attempts to protect Trump, and it's tiring and unwikipedian? That was really vague. -BeebLee (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was. That's because any discussion in that direction would distract from the subject at hand ("useful idiot"/"useful fool") and devolve into personal animus and attacks. That's unnecessary. We're supposed to talk about content, not editors. The comment was an attempt to warn editors to stay on topic and not let partisan concerns influence their decision making.
There were comments which were defending Trump, when he was not the real focus of the article (only mentioned in the quote), and yet the comments kept returning to making it about how the article wasn't about Trump, etc. They refused to look at the quote on its own merits. Some comments were obviously partisan. Some personal POV is allowed on talk pages, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for deletionism, especially considering WP:PRESERVE.
The Morell and Hayden quotes should have been taken on their own merits, not (just) because they were about Trump. That they were about him, such a notable person, is an argument for inclusion, not deletion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
That's still kinda vague. Can you quote or link the actual diffs where There were comments which were defending Trump or unabashed attempts to protect Trump or obviously partisan/personal POV comments.-BeebLee (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Except making nebulous accusations about other editors in a discussion without specific evidence is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Don't do that, especially if you're concerned about things devolving into personal animus. -BeebLee (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm one of the editors being accused of "defending Trump". If such accusations are going to be made, they should at least be made clearly, rather than being hinted at nebulously. I don't see how my comments, or any others over at Talk:Useful idiot could reasonably be interpreted as defending Trump, much less as "unabashed attempts to protect Trump". It's simply that he's not the subject of the article, and the focus on him was undue. There are lots of quotes that we could use to illustrate usage of the term "useful idiot" quite well, but the argument was being made that the quote about Trump had to be given at length, because it was somehow uniquely suited to the article (as opposed to all the other illustrations of the phrase, which I guess are not as suited to the article, if one follows the argument to its logical conclusion).
Thuc, you always are focused on yourself -- you talk about what you understand, what you don't understand, what you "can't understand", etc. Why do you think you've been sanctioned so many times at American Politics? I think it's cause you ignore good faith warnings and pleas to disengage and recognize when consensus is against you. What will you accomplish asking one of our most experienced and knowledgeable editors to apologize like this? Does it help improve Wikipedia? Cut it out. SPECIFICOtalk00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
One other thing to note is that as far as I can see from Talk:Useful idiot, nobody has argued for removing the Hayden quotation about Trump entirely from the article. Everyone appeared to want to keep the paraphrased version of his statement. The only question was about the much longer quotation in the footnote. I specifically did want to look at the quote on its own merits. I wanted to preserve the paraphrased version of it, but I wanted to know why the quote was being treated differently from all the other quotes in the article, some of which appear to be more notable (e.g., the quote by Tony Judt appears to have been more widely discussed in subsequent media). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised....and disappointed....that this issue, which was brought to my talk page, has blossomed into a little fire. A small ember which I deliberately let die (I thought), was actually picked up, blown on to keep it alive, brought here, blown up, and now is being blown on a whole lot more. I really don't want this. Let it die. No one has a right to force me to fight when I don't want to.
If anything more serious were to happen, I'm fully capable of using dispute resolution processes, notice boards, and escalating things, but I'd rather de-escalate this type of thing. Unfortunately that's not what's happened here.
We all have our POV. That's fine by me. I believe in democracy, and a healthy democracy MUST have opposing POV. They must not be suppressed and the opposition eliminated.
As you may have noticed in the box at the top, I think it's a strength when editors who hold opposing POV can "sit down" on the talk page and civilly develop content. Editors have POV. That's good. POV warriors don't respect that and stop there. They not only push their own POV, they seek to prevent other POV from being documented. That's harmful. I have often defended content I didn't agree with because it was properly sourced. I'd like to see more of this. Let's all seek to "write for the opponent" when necessary. Can we agree on that?
Now you know my thoughts on this, and I don't see an escalation as anything good, so I'm going to hat this. You're welcome to email me if you like. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:AR-15 style rifle
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At 2018-03-06T08:02:56, in the page history, you made an edit, with the added summary: "per(diff), this is where you inserted a new heading, not immediately above your comment". This was clearly a message to me, but the reason I bring it up is, because your edit was redacted (along with almost 20 others) I can't see if you made any changes to the page, or if this was just a dummy edit to post the summary (there is only a difference of -1 byte after your change). As for the heading you are correct, it was in a different place before you removed it. Since I didn't agree with the removal, and still felt the section break was warranted, I put the heading back, but at that point I put it above a comment of mine that specifically mentions the style the heading refers to. I think you may be under the impression that I was accusing you of removing the heading from above a comment on mine, but if you look at the specific comment again; ("the break/slash sub-heading is directly above my comment") ...you'll note that I say the heading "is" above my comment, where I had since re-placed it, not "was" above my comment, which would appear as an accusation. So I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. As for the heading, it is now back at it's original place (?) and because of the rev/del, I can't tell when it was moved or by who, but I know that I didn't move it. I have since moved it back so there wouldn't be any further problems. Cheers - theWOLFchild17:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, your comment seemed to be an accusation, but thanks for the explanation. That clears it up. Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe18:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
A cool script
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Just came by to see if you had the GoldenRing "generate diff" script. I love it because it allows you to see a diff inlne without leaving the page. There's just one caveat - if you're using an iPad and you've been granted the "rollback" feature, the "see diff" feature sits just above it so if you have fat fingers, you're liable to click the wrong feature (apologies). Atsme📞📧11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
1 inspect diff open inline in view history
I'm not sure. I have used a script for many years which allows me to hover over any diff and see the content. Is that it? I can also hover over a username and get details about that editor: SS number, bank, pincode, criminal record, etc. Nah, just kidding. It does give me this info:
You: ♀, autoreviewer, extendedmover, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, OTRS-member, 20125 edits since: 2011-01-10, last edit on 2018-03-08
Me: ♂, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 55600 edits since: 2005-12-18, last edit on 2018-03-08
That's probably a different script. So what does this GoldenRing script look like and what does it do? BTW, my phone is Android-based, and I don't have an iPad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe15:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just to comment: yes, the hatting intimidates me. Yes, it would intimidate anyone. If you want people's comments, leave the discussion open to view. Once it is hatted, the table of contents doesn't even work - and a warning at the top of each thread says the discussion is closed and shouldn't be modified. If you are actually finished with something, hat it. Individually, not everything under a double hat. Or archive it as everyone else does. And if you're not finished with it or are seeking input, leave it open. Just my 2 cents. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign
A 2018 study[1] by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%).[1][2]
The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers,[1][2] with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check.[3]
Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."[2]
NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."
NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."[2]
Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, Boyd Haley, Russell Blaylock, Sherri Tenpenny, Robert Sears, Joseph Mercola, Kevin Trudeau, Alex Jones, and Rush Limbaugh.
Organizations / websites
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (small, fringe group)
(*) Wikipedia is an excellent place to start a search for information, but never quote it. Instead, use their vetted sources. Note that the reliability of the source is directly connected with its intended use in the relevant article. A deceptive and unreliable source can be used to document unreliable claims, while reliable sources will be used to document reliable claims and facts.
AE
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that Dennis was referring to: "SUMMARY: The article should have a better section on the use of the AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings, and some editors are blocking that strongly enough that I quickly abandoned the thought of trying. That's my concern." --NeilNtalk to me04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Duh. (Thick head here.) You're probably right. I thought of very specific edits, of which I had said nothing. If I can be assured that TWC isn't around (a short topic ban), I may try my hand at developing a decent section there, because right now it's pitiful. Otherwise I won't. He's too uncomfortable an adversary, and that's a problem. The battlefield, ownership, attitude is intimidating. We should be collaborators, but his idea of "neutral" means "nothing negative" about AR-15s. That fundamental failure to understand the basics of Wikipedia needs to be mentioned, but drama boards tire me pretty quickly, hence I usually stay away from them. I don't like battle. That's not why we are here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe04:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Guns and crime
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Like you, I was surprised to see experienced editors having serious discussions about whether or not mass shootings belong in firearms articles. Part of the problem is a long-standing guidelineessay at WikiProject Firearms which editors have been citing as a blanket ban on inclusion. If you have the time, I would highly recommend reading through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. It is quite eye-opening. The statement has been challenged in multiple RfCs since 2008 and even made it to ANI. Essentially, discussions within WikiProject Firearms are dominated by project members, and outside admins refuse to take action because it is an "essay" which technically carries no weight.
I opened an RfC at Village Pump to get more eyes on the subject. I'm not asking you to participate, but reading the responses might give you a better idea of the situation at Arbcom. –dlthewave☎16:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Neither an essay or notability should be factors, but the AR-15's notoriety in RS is very compelling. It's the RS coverage, combined with legal issues,that require this be covered more extensively than now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Stormy
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this: None of the sources say that Trump denied the affair, as far as I can tell. Hasn't he been silent on the matter?- MrX 🖋 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
MrX, now I'm finally back, and I'll assume that wherever this is being discussed, it's probably resolved by now. I assumed he had personally denied it, but you're probably right that "the White House" has denied it, which isn't the same thing. (It's the classic Trump/Putin tactic of plausible deniability. This whole Russia thing works that way too, just like the Mafia. Always have others do your dirty work for you.)
Even if he didn't personally deny it, I think the denial should still be mentioned, per BLP. (That requirement was in an example, and I had moved it into the policy itself. )
Wikipedia gun nuts in the news
Wikipedia has been getting some embarrassing coverage because of the gross policy violations of a real cabal of pro-gun Wikipedia editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms who edit gun-related articles. Newsweek discusses how this "group of pro-gun Wikipedia editors tried to hide the true number of mass shootings associated with the AR-15 rifle," and certain editors are named and/or quoted:
There is extensive wikilawyering and gaming the sytem going on. It's persistent, extremely aggressive and personal, and violates policies. Refusal to allow mention of mass shootings using the AR-15 in the AR-15 style rifle and Mass shootings in the United States articles has been obvious. The very existence of that lack proves there is a serious problem and requires no further evidence or diffs.
Only recently (March 16) has it been grudgingly allowed in the Mass shootings and AR-15 style rifle articles after considerable pressure, warnings, and threats of topic bans from some courageous administrators. That should not have been necessary. Springee has been part of a collaborative effort to include proper material, so they should, in all fairness, get credit for that.
"WP: Firearms members coordinated their opposition to the inclusion of any mass-shooting coverage, instead limiting information to the technical details of the weapon."
"Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears."
(This incidental find is unrelated to guns....just storing it here)
Russell Brandom (March 6, 2018). "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page". The Verge. Retrieved March 18, 2018. For months before Parkland, information on generic AR-15 models was relegated to the Modern Sporting Rifles entry, which detailed various models and after-market additions, but made no mention of mass shootings or other gun control efforts.
Matthew Walther (November 7, 2017). "The adolescent cult of the AR-15". The Week. Retrieved March 18, 2018. (An extensive description of one named editor's efforts to skew content.)
While semi-automatic pistols are by far the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings,[5] AR-15 style rifles have been used in a number of the deadliest incidents, and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S.[17][18][19]
References
References
^Oakes, Dan (2013-01-23). "Assault guns made here". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
^Smith, Aaron (June 21, 2016). "Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
^Picchi, Aimee (June 15, 2016). "America's rifle: The marketing of assault-style weapons". CBS MoneyWatch. CBS News. Retrieved February 23, 2018. America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
^Zhang, Sarah (June 17, 2016). "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body". Wired. Retrieved March 3, 2018. The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
^Williams, Joseph P. (November 7, 2017). "How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America, A brief history of the guns that have become the weapons of choice for mass shootings". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
^Jansen, Bart; Cummings, William (November 6, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA Today. Retrieved February 15, 2018. AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
^Oppel Jr., Richard A. (February 15, 2018). "In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun". The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
^Beckett, Lois (February 16, 2018). "Most Americans can buy an AR-15 rifle before they can buy beer". The Guardian. Retrieved March 2, 2018. While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
^ abCite error: The named reference NYT 13 June 2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^"In Many U.S. States, 18 Is Old Enough to Buy a Semiautomatic". CBS News. The Associated Press. February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018. On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings...
^"In Many U.S. States, 18 Is Old Enough to Buy a Semiautomatic". CBS News. The Associated Press. February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018. On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings...
^Smith, Aaron (June 21, 2016). "Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
^Picchi, Aimee (June 15, 2016). "America's rifle: The marketing of assault-style weapons". CBS MoneyWatch. CBS News. Retrieved February 23, 2018. America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
^Zhang, Sarah (June 17, 2016). "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body". Wired. Retrieved March 3, 2018. The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
^Williams, Joseph P. (November 7, 2017). "How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America, A brief history of the guns that have become the weapons of choice for mass shootings". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
^Jansen, Bart; Cummings, William (November 6, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA Today. Retrieved February 15, 2018. AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
^Oppel Jr., Richard A. (February 15, 2018). "In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun". The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
^Beckett, Lois (February 16, 2018). "Most Americans can buy an AR-15 rifle before they can buy beer". The Guardian. Retrieved March 2, 2018. While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
^Cite error: The named reference NYT 13 June 2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BR, I noticed this revert. The contrib was from a WikiEd student participant, who seems to be at least trying to do things well. It seems to me that AGF calls for a bit more than an edit comment in such cases, perhaps a quick note to the contrib's talkpage? In this case Ian seems to have covered that off, so no worries. Cheers, LeadSongDogcome howl!16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
BullRangifer, I wanted to let you know about an ANI question I posted that is related to your posts ["mentioned_by_media"_section_of_a_talk_page?]. I didn't name you in the question because I don't want this to be about you so much as just helping me understand what is OK and not OK when posting and talking about external media coverage. I've thought about mentioning this to you several times because I think posts like this one [[3]] are very antagonistic. I've mentioned, indirectly, that the content of the Verge article is not factually correct (the other articles are simply parrots of the Verge). I don't expect any retractions from the media (though I found it gratifying that a number of comments on the Verge article found the article questionable). What I think is improper is to repeatedly post the article in a way that suggests a moral high ground in what is a content dispute. Posting articles that essentially slander editors here is can't be seen as creating a more cooperative editing environment. That's how I read it and I hope you will consider that even if we don't agree on content we (and the other involved editors) are making good faith efforts to improve these articles. Springee (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Springee, I totally understand that it can't be comfortable to see one's username and edits discussed in the media (well, some people might like it!). I only posted it once at the Arb page, because it was in line with previous content and subject matter. The hatting was deliberate. (Posting the "press" template on talk pages is standard practice, and it doesn't mention any editors.)
I hope you noticed the last part of this paragraph:
Only recently (March 16) has it been grudgingly allowed in the Mass shootings and AR-15 style rifle articles after considerable pressure, warnings, and threats of topic bans from some courageous administrators. That should not have been necessary. Springee has been part of a collaborative effort to include proper material, so they should, in all fairness, get credit for that.
You really do deserve credit for collaborative editing, which is something that hasn't been happening properly on those gun articles. The press pointed out a systemic problem, and I hope you realize that, in that regard, they were right. As long as we all keep Wikipedia's PAG at the forefront, and keep our political and other POV in the background, we should all be able to edit collaboratively. Note the box with the image at the top of this page: "Talk page negotiation table". It's from one of my essays.
I actually do AGF about the editors involved. I just think that they have lost sight of our PAG and allowed their own activism and ad hoc Project Firearms ideas and "rules" to trump Wikipedia's PAG. Those ideas and rules, the RfC, and the essay, do not trump PAG. That's where it all went wrong. One can edit in good faith and still drift off-base. We're all humans and it can happen to all of us, and that's where we need each other. When we meet resistance, we must AGF in our opposers and ask ourselves if they might have a point. (That isn't always easy!)
I really am sorry that I have brought you grief. You seem to be an honorable person, and I have enjoyed our work together. I hope we can do so in the future. I miss hunting, and it would be cool if I could take you Reindeer hunting in Greenland (my article), but those days are gone. They were some of the best years of my life. My SAKO .30-06 performed quite well. If I were to do it again, I'd probably use a .243 Winchester. It's more comfortable because it has less kick, but the .30-06 could literally flip a grown deer. Suddenly all four legs in the air. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm reply. It's gratifying when talk page comments like this work. It really does help smooth over some of the article disagreements. I think part of the disagreement is what people think is the correct scope for many articles. I know some people will say the most significant thing about the Smith & Ruggerd Model 500 is it was the gun used in X crime. Others, and I generally fall in this camp, will say the use of the SR500 in that crime is "about the crime" vs "about the gun" and thus goes in the crime article. It becomes a bit of a gray back and forth as I think there is validity to both sides. Of course, in some cases material is added as a coatrack vs because it creates a balanced telling. That in turn leads to suspicion and accusations of blackwashing/white washing etc. Anyway, I was a key player in a RfC related to adding information about the Oklahoma City bombing to the Ford F-650 article and the DC Area snipper attacks to the Chevy Caprice page. It had parallels to our current topics. In both cases the crimes were arguably more significant than the vehicle pages (especially in the case of the bombing). I did a combined RfC and the results were interesting. The few involved editors, myself included, were about 50/50 but the uninvolved editors were actually strongly against inclusion. At least when it came to automotive topics the feeling was, is this something that most sources about the vehicle would mention? Sure, just about every article about the DC shootings talked about the blue Caprice but almost no article about the car will mention the crime. When we have nearly identical situations save for replacing "blue caprice" with "SR500" I bet we are no more than 50/50 against inclusion. [[4]]
I'm sorry you can't enjoy hunting anymore. I appreciate the offer but, perhaps ironically, I've never wanted to go hunting. I'm not morally against but I'm not sure how I would feel if I were actually hunting. But I would like to see the countryside regardless of the hunt. I miss living in the country, including rifle shooting (a friend has an M1 so I do have an idea what 30-06 feels like). Anyway, we'll find another article to argue over. I would like to add more to the NRA page. I don't like that we have criticisms that touch on things like the NRA's actions to oppose various policies/laws but the article doesn't offer any understanding of WHY the NRA is opposed to X Y or Z. Anyway, I only have so much energy for these contentious article edits. I need to get back into the automotive tech stuff. More fun (but harder to reliably source). Again, thanks for the kind reply Springee (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take on the four articles you posted (thanks BTW for the recent edits to the summaries). I basically see the News Week, and Haaretez as repeating the claims of The Verge. The Week was of course its own thing. Anyway, The Verge's author did ask me for a quote but just 24 hours before. His question was vague (other than making the tone of the article clear). I decided not to reply and I don't think a well thought out reply would have mattered. I think there were two things the author got really wrong.
First, the sequence of events related to the AR-15 pages. As I recall and based on my limited exposure to the article prior to this year, there were kind of two debates going on. The first was the scope of the article. The Colt AR-15 article, as I gather, started as the general AR-15 page. My early involvement was around the time there was a big debate about what the scope of the AR-15 page should be. Some editors felt that, since AR-15 was a trademarked name it should only be about the "Colt AR-15". So the people who were trying to keep general AR-15 material (primarily crime material) out were doing so based on keeping the article on topic (thus not a PAG violation). As I gathered, the outcome of this debate was to change what was the AR-15 article to the Colt AR-15 article and then start a second article that was the generic page. Of course that didn't go smoothly. First, until recently, the AR-15 search term went to the Colt article vs a disambiguation page. So when someone searched for "AR-15" they found the Colt AR-15 page then assumed the removal of general AR-15 material was only due to trying to keep the material off Wikipedia vs just keeping the article focused.
That would have been easier to deal with if the generic page had been created properly (note: I'm really vague on this part of the history). I recall debates about what to call the page. At some point it appears that Modern Sporting Rifles was picked or morphed into the generic page. I have an issue with that since, as I understand it, not AR-15s can be MSRs. I also see why people who wanted to put some thing about a crime wouldn't think to search for that page and AR-15 didn't redirect there. So that I what I see as the setup that caused most of the issues The Verge reported. The biggest issue was that when the AR-15 page went non-generic, the creation of the generic page and setting up of disambiguations wasn't done correctly/at all. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate effort to keep this material out of any article or more likely just people weren't worried about creating the generic page so it was never really done. As it relates to the Verge, well, that author made it sound like this was a planned or controlled thing vs just the sort of outcome that inevitable given the circumstances.
Another issue with The Verge is conflating the removal of a given passage as refusal to allow any such material in the article. A number of the passages I've removed over the last 1.5 years were edits made by the many socks of HughD. Even the material we ended up adding to the AR-15 style rifle page started off as a HughD sock addition. When the reporter would see a single passage from the NRA article get removed he didn't distinguish between not wanting the general material included vs not wanting the specific text. As an example, I haven't been happy with the racism and NRA material but I was having trouble expressing why (beyond feeling that the facts didn't fit the conclusion drawn in the citations). I think this recent edit nailed my issue really well [[5]]. I've had this issue with other articles where material that is, if you will a subjective conclusion, is presented as an established fact. That was one of the issues I had during a protracted edit war at the Ford Pinto article. It took a lot of effort to craft what I thought was a honest telling of events based on RSed material given all the inflammatory articles that can be quoted talking about Ford's heartless Pinto choices. Sorry, off subject :D Anyway, the Verge assumed a motivation without considering that material is sometimes removed for reasons other than suppression.
I don't have much to say about The Week (and you are likely board to death at this point) other than first, the author didn't consider that simple suppression isn't the only reason to remove material. Second, given how quickly a single removal made it to a news story, I have trouble believing that was just a reporter who happened across the story.
I'm not bored at all. It's always interesting to see things from a different angle. There are indeed many different ways to see these things. That's why AGF is so important. I share your suspicion about the time factor from edit to Verge article. There may well be an editor here who is the author, or who knows the author. I'd bet it's something like that going on.
I don't have much, if any, history with these articles. I have an enormously broad editing history, and at one time had nearly 10,000 subjects on my watchlist. I recently pared it down, but it's creeping upward. Right now it's at 717. So I may have made some edits to some of these articles at some point in time, but I don't recall ever getting seriously involved. I think I may have edited the guns I have owned: Ruger Blackhawk .357 Magnum/9mm convertible, Colt Python .357, Ruger 10/22, 12-gauge shotgun, and SAKO .30-06. Also some calibers I have used: .357 Magnum, .30-06 Springfield, .38 Special, .38 S&W, 9mm Luger, .22 Long Rifle, and .410 bore.
I have a fairly minimal knowledge of firearms as you may have noticed. I came across this whole debate after reading about "The AR-15" in a news story, searching for it on Wikipedia and wondering why certain recent shootings weren't mentioned in the article that came up. To someone not versed in firearms terminology, the difference between a Colt AR-15, AR-15 style rifle, SIG MCX, assault weapon and assault rifle was confusing. It certainly had the appearance of a technicality that was being used to keep information out of articles, which I now understand was not the case. By the way, thank you Springee for explaining a few of these differences to me. It looks to me like the Verge misunderstood the facts, which must have been incredibly frustrating for the involved editors.
The remaining problem is that the Criminal Use essay continues to be presented as PAG. Looking through the archives of the Wikiproject Firearms talk page, I was shocked at how many times this has been challenged as far back as 2008. The conversation was usually dominated by project members who cite a "long-standing consensus" (it's there somewhere in the history, just look it up). Admins have become involved a few times, but they've dismissed it as "just an essay" with no real standing. I'm hoping that the village pump RfC will draw attention to this and put an end to the problem. –dlthewave☎05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
An apology
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Over the past couple of weeks, you and I have butted heads a number of times. I'd like to apologize for my part in those exchanges. I let my responses get more personal and more heated than they should have been. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We may not agree on some of the issues, but I understand how exchanges can get heated. Been there and done that. I'm sure we can all do better in the future. The section above this mentions you (and others), without naming you. You should read it. I do AGF in your intentions, even if I don't agree with all that's happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe14:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I've read it. I've read all the sources you posted. To be blunt, the opinion piece in The Week borders on offensive. The author makes incorrect statements, provided no balance or even a venue to correct him. I have a link on my user page to email me. Instead of ending with a question about whether or not I could do something, he could have actually asked me that question. Honestly, given your experiences with off-wiki activities, I'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive to it. Regardless, I do apologize and will try to do better. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately my real-life problems have abated and not been "alive" for several years. Mine were very different from your current issue with that author. Mine were threats. Neither of our situations is pleasant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe15:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad it's over for you. I mean it's fairly ridiculous for people to carry their disagreements off the site, let alone make actual threats to families. I'm sorry you had that experience. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a clarification. The threats were unrelated to editing here, but were exacerbated by it. They started with occasional nasty and threatening comments on Usenet and Yahoo! Groups discussion groups, then on mailing lists. Then a couple of those people sought me out here at Wikipedia and decided to attack me and also attack a prominent physician. It ended up with me getting dragged through an ArbCom. I survived and was ultimately vindicated, but it was a grueling experience. That's when my children were threatened and I immediately stopped writing the book I had been commissioned to write. It won't get published. Lesson...don't seriously criticize the chiropractic profession. They react in the same way that $cientology does to any criticism. I was once on the front page of one of their magazines, named as Chiropractic enemy number one. They sought personal information on me from any readers in a clear attempt to intimidate me with doxing. The threats really escalated then, ending with the threats to my children, in English, in a foreign (non-English) country, showing they were literally following my young children and knew their every movement. That was really scary. By my stopping all critical activities, they have also stopped. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's amazing. I'll stay away from articles about chiropractors....although I have dipped a toe in the Scientology pool (just in the very shallow end). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Your request for arbitration enforcement
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Unless there's something I've missed, your request for arbitration enforcement is almost certain to be declined because the other editor was not formally aware of discretionary sanctions in force at the time the edits were made. I know this seems a boring technicality, but any sanction levied would be overturned on appeal because of it.As it looks to me like you've also breached the 1RR restriction in force on that page, might I suggest your best course is to withdraw the AE complaint, self-revert at the article and start a talk page discussion over the disputed material? GoldenRing (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
GoldenRing, I apparently misunderstood the instructions. I thought it said that DS applied on first offense, even without warning, so I warned and then reported, but my report also requested leniency. I thought we expected that the notice on the talk page serves as the initial warning. I only expect the editor to get an official warning, nothing more. I have self-reverted, so now the article is in a DS violating state. Someone else needs to return the article to its neutral state. That's all my edit intended to do. My mistake.
This is the first time I've filed such a report. It's a bit complicated. While filling out the form, it even instructs one to go to the editor, while the form is still open, leave a warning (which sounds like it may be the first they ever hear about the matter), then return and place the diff of the warning in the form, and then save the report.
It needs to be plain that they must be warned before filing, then be allowed to violate DS restrictions again, before one is allowed to file a report. I was under the impression one was supposed to file a report immediately, even on the first offense. Dazed and confused. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, yes, I see that now. So the instructions when filling out the form need to be improved, and it also be clear that the template on the talk page does not count. The form at AE actually instructs to go and warn the person, then return, place the diff of the warning, and then save the form.
I have seen people point to the existence of the DS template on the talk page as a de facto first warning. I think I'll just stay away from this DS business. I'm just getting more confused. Maybe I shouldn't edit in the middle of the night, , and not in pain.
Yes, it's a complicated business sometimes, I'm afraid. Thanks for self-reverting at the article.I'll try to summarise:
Discretionary sanctions (DS) are in place for any subject that the arbitration committee has authorised them. This is usually around "Topic X broadly construed" but this is won't necessarily always be the case (and there's a variety of similar language hanging around from older cases which may or may not mean exactly the same thing as "broadly construed").
For an editor to be sanctioned under discretionary sanctions, they have to be formally aware of the sanctions in place per the requirements at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. Technically I think they only have to be aware when sanctioned, not when they made the offending edits, though it would be very unusual for someone to be sanctioned for edits made before they were aware of the DS in place, and lack of awareness would normally be grounds to overturn any sanction on appeal.
To be sanctioned for violating a restriction placed on a page by an admin under DS, the editor has to meet the awareness requirements and there has to be an edit notice on the page. These requirements definitely have to have been met when the editor made the offending edit in every case; the technicality for other DS doesn't apply here.
Trump: "While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organisations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election."
Clapper defends the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia tried to sway the election in Trump's favor, but that the intelligence community DID NOT TRY to judge if Russia was successful. Therefore it is false to claim that Russian efforts had no effect. We don't know.
James Clapper hit back at a Facebook exec’s assertion that Russia’s main objective wasn’t to swing the 2016 election. By Emily Stewart, Vox, February 18, 2018
Clapper, however, said the intelligence community opted against attempting to judge the impact of Russian meddling on individual voters' decisions in a report that was made public last year. (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents
Further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails)
That "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it after Duma (legislative elections) in late September." (Dossier, p. 22)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WP:PRESERVE means we try to respect good faith additions and improve, rather than delete, them. It's a very fundamental policy tied to the very goals of Wikipedia (create more content, rather than make the encyclopedia smaller).
As long as certain basic policies are not violated (mentioned there), we should do just about everything possible to preserve content, rather than delete it. If such attempts fail, then it should be moved (not deleted) to the talk page for further work. Deletion is a last ditch action for good faith additions. There is no requirement that additions must be complete and perfect. We are all supposed to improve them. Sometimes that means moving the content to the talk page for work. That's fine. Editors should be treated respectfully and not discouraged by the careless trashing of their good faith efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
My approach to creating an article or article content
I just noticed this fascinating conversation and have to share some thoughts. I trust that each editor has their own style for approaching how to add content and create articles. I think it's a mistake to start with an imagined ideal scenario for how an article should appear, and then strive to create that appearance. At any given time in history, RS will say very different things about very different people, and their articles should be radically different. Only a very basic outline might be in common, and I think our MoS has recommendations of that type. That has little to do with the actual content slant in each section. It will (and should) be very different for different people.
How do I approach this? I start by collecting RS, lots of them, sometimes hundreds. Then I spread them out and see if there are any common themes and duplication. Those get put into the same section because they are on the same topic. Note it is the sources that determine the result. I can't (and won't) create a picture that I'd "like" to see, because I don't start with that idea. I let the sources create the picture they are telling. Then I document that picture. Just like MastCell, I stick to RS and don't use either far left or far right ones. I definitely don't let other things", like articles on similar types of people (other presidents, for example) be a guide for how I should write the new article. Again, it is the available RS which dictate the picture, and it should be very different than all others.
For example, a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have a radically different understanding and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in the Trump article is pretty much forbidden. (Even MelanieN supports it. I'd expect it of Masem, but her? That shakes my faith in humanity.) I have enough (over 300 VERY RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that it would never be allowed because the consensus among RS is that he's a serial liar, it's very well-documented, not just opinion, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. Such an article would be labeled an "attack page" by Atsme, even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here.
Trump exemption
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Practice on the Trump article and talk page shows a clear use of the Wikipedia:Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by this edit, which is a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe06:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This caliber is not suitable for hunting as it destroys too much meat, with fragments scattering throughout the animal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Significant and notable exception
This removed a significant and notable exception. No RS made note of Trump's failure to give derogatory nicknames to many other world leaders because there was nothing unusual about it, but RS did note his failure to do so for Putin, largely because of his suspicious support for Putin, an enemy of democracy and free elections who is attacking democracy and America, and Trump's failures to condemn or do anything to stop those attacks, since Trump is the one who benefits from those attacks:
Maybe we need to give the context. Find quotes in sources.
AR-15
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You know, the last time I approached you about on your talk page about article talk page issues, we were able to come to an amicable resolution and put the matter to rest, so I'll try it again. I am only interested in adding some content about the legitimate use of that rifle, so if you could stop coming at me as if I'm trying to somehow reduce or even remove any criminal use content, I'm sure many would appreciate it. All this back-and-forth is accomplishing nothing, it's just becoming increasingly longer and distracting pagefill. Thanks - theWOLFchild20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's not what I said. I don't even see those words in my above comments. I'm talking about the accusations of trying to remove or reduce criminal use content, violating three quarters of the AE warning, personal attacks, etc., etc. I responded to a post that I agreed with, then added my opinion that a legitimate use section should also be added. That's it. I don't see how that merited the responses you posted. I'm really not looking to debate the mass-shooting info. Any reader not knowledgeable on the subject, reading that article right now, would have no idea why millions of ARs have sold to the public, because other than some development history and technical specs, the only use indicated is eight used mass-murder. That's not an article in balance. I'm pleased you are receptive to discussing the addition of legitimate use content, but responding to every one of my posts as if they have some other hidden or disruptive agenda, will not help accomplish that goal. Thanks for the reply, I hope we can now move forward. - theWOLFchild00:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Null
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The sourcing is irrelevant: the problem is that an encyclopedia doesn't care about one publication's opinion. I could bring in tons of factual statements of "Source X says Y about person/entity/topic Z", and they'd all be sufficiently sourced, but they wouldn't generally belong because they're other entities' opinions. Preserving inappropriate content is wrong; in this situation, improvement consists of trashing, not preserving or modifying. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
1RR at Trump–Russia dossier
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'll start a discussion so we can get a consensus to revert that. That editor didn't seem to have read more than a few words before deleting content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop hounding me.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your edit was disruptive, especially knowing I would not be responding on that user's TP again. I am not going to discuss your obvious biases and POV, or your lack of understanding about WP:NPOV, or how your choices of RS and cherrypicked information from those sources is noncompliant with NPOV. I am done explaining to you - my patience has worn thin, and I hope you can see that what you're doing is highly disruptive. Please stop hounding me - go about your business and leave me alone. Thank you. Atsme📞📧01:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The sound of a mind slamming shut is unnerving. It portends sadness and conflict for that person and those around them, including here at Wikipedia. This does not bode well.
Editors who fail to show a positive learning curve create problems here. When they refuse to subordinate their minds to the evidence in RS, and allow that knowledge to change their minds, they are at cross-purposes with the aims and policies of Wikipedia. This is one of many traits found in tendentious editors. Sad. Sad. Sad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverting Articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope this is the right place to talk with you. Feel free to delete it if it is not.
Thank you for reverting the edits I did, not knowing how the bot worked based on the documentation I could find. I will definitely NOT be using it in the future and will focus on editing by hand as I have in the past with significantly more success. This was my first time using it and it will be the last as it is way too dangerous. Having several people let me know what I did wrong, it is now understood. I am sorry for the damage I caused.
But your words came across very violently unlike the others. It may not have been your intent but this is how it came across. I can see your passion for this project and appreciate it. Just realize that there is another human being on the other side who is far from perfect. Scaring people off with violent and threatening words is counter-productive in my opinion. It is my understanding that perfection is not necessary to participate in this project.
I will focus on what I seem to be doing well (local history articles, etc.) and leave the rest to others.
I'm sorry about that. I do tend to speak very directly, and tact has never been my strong point. I'll try to do better. I don't think you need to stop using the bot, just use the right settings so it's only truly dead links which get replaced. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe14:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Survivor"
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Every student at MSD High School who didn't die in the shooting is being referred to as a survivor. Kashuv, specifically (just as the others who have been highlighted in media) is being referred to as a survivor by reliable source after reliable source. We go by WP:RS here, therefore, he is a survivor. Remember, verifiability over truth. Please revert your edit at the Kashuv article. -- ψλ ● ✉✓02:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I see you've changed it back and then back again. How about this: "Shooting survivor, activist" for the heading? He's known as both, but more as a shooting survivor in reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉✓02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I only changed the heading this time. All other places he is called a survivor are untouched. Every student is called a "survivor", but that has become a moniker, and doesn't signify anything special about him. In the same sources, he is also called a gun rights activist, or something similar. That's what makes him special. It deserves a heading, since that's what the whole section is about. Headings and content should harmonize. Again, he's still called a survivor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
BullRangifer, I noticed you were making edits directly on the WP:GAN page. Please don't. The page is created by a bot, and it gets updated every 20 minutes based on the information it finds on article talk pages, including Talk:Trump–Russia dossier—in particular, the GA nominee templates. All of the edits you made have been undone by the bot, which rebuilt the nomination's entry.
For future reference, if you want to add a note about a co-nominator or the like, the way to do it is to add the text to the GA nominee template on the article's talk page; just type in what you want after the "|note=" field in the template. The bot will pick up on it, and add it to the nomination entry on the WP:GAN page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
[[:File:2015_RT_gala_dinner_in_Moscow,_general_Flynn_next_to_President_Putin.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|right|Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Jill Stein (2015)]]
@BullRangifer: I think you should think long and hard about whether your ability to read and write objectively has been badly compromised by your strong political views. You have got to be able to discuss views about maybe Trump didn't collude without insulting the editor or wrongly accusing them of reading propaganda sources. Factchecker_atyourservice17:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A quick comment between patients... My comments to specific editors are based on the fact that they have previously quoted, mentioned favorably, and/or shown knowledge only available from, such sources, and at times all three. Now they no longer cite them. Stop making accusations about things you know nothing about, and drop your fetish-like fixation on me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Has any such editor been active on the talk page in the last 30 days? If not, why must you talk about it basically every day? Also what does "pot meet kettle" mean?
"Fetish-like fixation"? You berated me nonsensically about Infowars etc. on Jimbo freaking Wales talk page, and then deleted my talk page comments and you're telling me I'm the one being unreasonable? Factchecker_atyourservice18:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It's quite clear why you would be called unreasonable from time to time. I'm sure this is not a new experience. I'm sure it's meant with constructive intent. SPECIFICOtalk21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
If you ever delete my article talk comments and then post some dumb diatribe while I am trying to ask Jimbo a question, I'll post on your talk page too. Factchecker_atyourservice01:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice, let's get one thing straight, I did not "delete" your comments; I "archived" them. There is a difference, so get your terminology straight. I did not single them out for archiving either. That talk page was HUGE and unwieldy, so I looked at the dates for the last comments and then started archiving all threads which were stale, inactive, or unlikely to get anymore comments.
Yours fell in all three categories, most likely because they were so huge and convoluted that no one wanted to touch them anymore. You had been warned and advised by several editors to keep it short and simple. If anything was still a concern, you could start a new thread.
BTW, even though your comments were unwieldy, and you may think I ignored them, I didn't. I read them carefully and did make some changes to accommodate some concerns which had some legitimacy. It was just difficult to do. In the future, stick to one single issue and keep it very short. Also don't write aggressively and offensively, because that clearly implies you are not AGF. That turns people off. More sugar and less vinegar.
To really achieve progress, provide actual wordings and sourcing for suggested improvements. That is something we can work with. If you watch my interactions with User:Politrukki, you'll see that, even though we differ in POV and don't always agree, we collaborate and get things done. I'm far from perfect and have my blind spots, and Politrukki is a good foil to help me improve. I really appreciate that. Many of their suggestions and concerns have resulted in improvements, largely because their approach is more positive and they AGF. It may not be as much as they want, but it's still worth something.
Look at that picture at the top of this page and read it. I really believe that. I have always tried to live by that, and sometimes I have failed, so I really welcome opportunities to work with editors on the "other side of the table" who are willing to work with me. It's a give and take situation, and Politrukki can attest that I'm not very hard to work with. I don't give out barnstars very often, but they got one. (I need to do it more.) I admit my errors once I'm convinced, and am willing to change content I have installed when imperfections are pointed out. AGF is essential. Try it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You deleted them while leaving your own much older stale comments in place. If you thought they were too lengthy there is something called a hat which you are well freaking aware of so don't pretend you aren't fully aware that you could have collapsed the comments without removing them. Of course you also removed maintenance tags too which were related to the talk sections, intended to point users to them, but I'm sure you have some "innocent" pretext/excuse for that too. As for writing "aggressively and offensively", your own venomous essays and comments and utterly nonsensical shoutings at me render your "advice" plainly hypocritical—again I point out you had the gall to stupidly, stupidly blather abuse at me about Infowars on the talk page of the founder of Wikipedia.
As I said, BullRangifer, I do not have a lot of time to edit Wikipedia and so it was my hope that I could simply point out obvious problems in plain English that anybody could understand, refer to sources that no sane WP editor would object to, and point to core policies that everyone here is supposed to at least pay lip service to, in the hope that somebody else would feel an obligation to fix them. I realize my comments were long, but that was because the problems are so extensive and because I did not wish to make a daily 7-day-per-week attendance over the course of many months to discuss them in dribs and drabs in the manner you suggest—which would be fine for a normal article but not one such as this that is so extensively bad at a 5-pillars level. Factchecker_atyourservice03:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
At Jimbo Wales' talk page, I spoke of "they", not "you". Your defensive reaction indicates that "you" are likely part of "they". That's pretty obvious, or you wouldn't believe the things you do, or attack the editors you do, and I'm not the only one you attack. Now that your reply has made it clear that you are not interested in collaborative editing, we're finished here. You are a totally BATTLE editor.
I have rarely done this since I started here in 2003, but you are now banned from this talk page. Your abuse is unwelcome. I extended an olive branch, and got abuse. I reserve the right to delete anymore of your comments, and I'm archiving this thread as unproductive. Communicating with you is fruitless and cannot lead to anything good. Your presence at Wikipedia is a net negative. Your block log is lengthy, and you seem to have learned little. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe03:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Opinion on talk pages
Hi, BR. Factchecker went about it wrong, but he had a valid point. That whole "Why didn’t Clinton use it?" section was OR and I have hatted it. I also extended the hat over an additional portion of your "Gobbledygook" rant, about the Trumpies being surprised when Putin went beyond what they thought was his mandate. We are all entitled to our opinions, but please try not to FORUM on the article talk page. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? What part of the "Why didn't Clinton..." section is OR? Did you read every word I wrote? Okay, some are humor challenged, so hat the Borowitz part, but not the very serious question.
This is especially ironic coming from that "walls of forum" editor who believes conspiracy theories.
I read it as a rhetorical question - a way of making the point that the Clintonites obviously didn't have the information since they didn't use it. That certainly seems to be the point you are making in the first two paragraphs. And the request for sourcing I also read as rhetorical, since if any hint of actual evidence had ever been found, the Republicans would be all over it. But you felt it was a genuine request for information? How about this: I'll unhat it, if you will rephrase the section title and the wording so that they don't sound argumentative. As in "Can anyone find any reports of..." Of course, you know and I know there are no such reports, so the question is still basically rhetorical. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm....hadn't thought of that possible interpretation. Yes, I doubt there are any such RS, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt to those who wonder. If they can find such sources, we might be able to use them. They're always demanding a way to get their POV in the article. Here's a chance.
Unfortunately I can't do much extensive changing on my phone. It's a pain, but maybe this evening.
Thanks. Now is anyone going to hat Factchecker's walls of aggressive and accusatory forum? Their approach is not conducive to goodwill and collaboration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I really tried to work with Factchecker. But it's like pulling teeth to get anything specific out of him - it's all generalities. And when I finally got a suggestion of one specific thing to look at, and my response was everything he could have desired, his reaction was totally negative. Just general complaints (personal this time) and refusals to name any additional specifics we can talk about. I'm done trying to work with him. And somebody else is going to have to deal with his walls of FORUM-spouting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, I understand. Somewhere in that wall of aggressive, confrontational, and uncivil NOTAFORUM stuff are some items which could be dealt with, but if he's going to continue to be so negative, accusatory, and completely not AGF, then the response is going to be less than enthusiastic. There can be no collaboration with someone who talks down to us and only berates. You(?) called it "rude". That was a very gentle understatement. There's also the failure to understand several policies, hence some of the unrealistic demands. But, largely, it's not so much what he's trying to do, but how it's done.
Editors who have the same POV can produce good content, but it's better when those who have opposing POV are involved. Each brings many things to the negotiating table which are required for a better article. It would be better if another editor filtered and washed their concerns and started afresh with a civil, measured, and specific attempt to deal with some of those concerns a little bit at a time.
As has been quite evident on the article and the previous List article, those editors who are willing to work with me in a civil way, clearly expressing their concerns in a short and specific manner, well, they have found a good, pleasant, reciprocal, compromising, and collaborative working environment, and they have always seen some of their concerns result in needed changes, some of which I would not have noticed without them. That's been my experience with such editors, several of whom hold POV diametrically opposite to mine. I can work with such people. But this editor? How can it be done? Why should it be done? I don't have a single masochistic gene in my body!
They must learn that they can't force people to respect them, and there needs to be some form of mutual respect. I'm not going to work with someone who treats me badly. Their attitude spreads poison ahead of them, and they poison the well on themselves. Sad.
They have strained the DS civility requirement beyond the snapping point repeatedly, with nothing happening, not even a warning (that I know of). The result is a chilling effect and sense of unfairness.
I'm hesitant to get involved, but for their own sake I will point out some places where they've really got it backwards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
He hasn't exactly been uncivil as Wikipedia understands it. His name calling is directed at Wikipedia rather than any individual. But he has been totally obstructionist, uncooperative, unwilling to work together. For that reason my approach to him from now on is going to be to ignore him. I think we could all do that. Don't respond to him; talk around him. I gave it one shot - I looked at a source he had criticized, agreed with his criticism, started the process of removing the source, totally gave him what he wanted. In return I got kicked in the teeth. I thought that might encourage him to see, hey, collaboration works. Clearly no such message was received. No more for me. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
My reaction was not based on his reasoning; I wasn't "giving in". It was based on the fact that I thought the complaint was valid. The source is NOT one you would think of as a reliable source for straight news. I'm sure their reports about the dossier's allegations were taken directly from the dossier and thus as reliable as anyone else's. Still, we can get the same information from more mainstream sources and that would be better. (think Good Article) And the subsection is one I had earlier suggested for deletion. I may take a look at some of the other sources he identified; if I find them improper I will take action - but not because of anything he said. He is just the person who called them to my attention - back when I was still paying attention to him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
MelanieN, in that section it isn't being used "for straight news", but for opinion. The author is a political editor. That's his specialty. As you know, practically any source can be considered a RS, all depending on what it is being used for. It's a joke, but it's also true that Playboy does contain some excellent articles by notable people. Rolling Stone also has excellent, in depth, political articles. Vanity Fair as well, and so does Paste. Business Insider has quite a bit of in depth political coverage, from a very neutral position. So one must look at the article itself, and then look at how it's being used. The Paste article is being used as secondary RS documentation for the existence of certain allegations, together with other RS. It's also used for the opinion, a clearly expressed one at that. Removing this removes nearly any opinion of this type. We are sadly negligent in this department. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe05:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Factchecker atyourservice
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Crap! I clicked the link and replied, thinking I was on this page. Well, here's my reply to you:
Indeed. That was my notification, and I have no intent to engage further. I have extended olive branches and gotten abuse. I'm finished with them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe04:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The squirrel
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Yes, by attacking honest journalism, the last bastion of free speech and the last defense of private citizens, he has succeeded in cutting a large minority off from RS which cover all news, including what he doesn't want his followers to know. The whole situation is nuts, but it's a tactic used by authoritarian dictators to gain mind control.
Did I somehow offend you? No. Take up your dispute with Pew Research Center if you don't like their facts.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Now get off my page.
Stop pinging me.
Stop mentioning me.
Stop denigrating and attacking me.
Just get over it. You seem to have an obsession with putting me down and creating a hostile editing environment for me. I know we don't share political POV, but we should be able to edit collaboratively. That means the hostility has to stop. Do NOT try to reply to this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe19:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, if you delete this section they're complaining about then they won't have a leg to stand on if they direct a personal snipe at you again (assuming you keep away from them, too). SPECIFICO should know better than to fan the flames. Resist the temptation. --NeilNtalk to me02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I'm a bit confused. So Factchecker keeps on attacking me long after (in sense of edits, not years) I've ceased mentioning them in any negative manner or spoken to them. They repeatedly go against your pretty clear admonition to not post here, and do so just to insult me and make demands they have no right to make. They make snide remarks about me on other talk pages, while accusing me of making personal attacks when I haven't spoken about or to them. They keep mentioning my essay, which was not written about or to them, but since they self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned in relation to our policies, they decide to take it personally and try to censor my private essay and my talk page.
I hope you're not suggesting their behavior should be rewarded. Or do you mean something else? I really don't understand you. What's on my talk page, or in my personal essay, is none of their business if it doesn't mention them. They are literally trying to stifle the expression of views they don't like, even when it doesn't mention them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe02:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty simple. You can either delete a section started off by an inappropriate comment by SPECIFICO and perhaps cool things off or you can leave things be. Either way, I don't expect you or Factchecker_atyourservice to post on each other's talk pages, save for the necessary administrative notes if things get that far. --NeilNtalk to me03:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I think you (like the uninvited visitor here) are making entirely too much of my comment. BR and I are old colleagues on the politics articles. We both have generally cordial relations even with editors with whom we often disagree. Mr. Factchecker is entirely too prone to personalize just about everything he does on WP, from what I can see. But the comment I made to BR was not about him and he had no reason to claim otherwise or to bring you in here w/o context to further whatever grudge he's bearing. BR and I share an intermittent frustration relating to many issues and articles *the nuts* and it has nothing to do with Mr. Factchecker person. SPECIFICOtalk04:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec)...
NeilN, thanks for clearing that up. It really is THIS thread you're talking about. Okay, will do, but I must make a few things clear:
This is my talk page and neither SPECIFICO's comment, nor my response, were aimed at any particular person, and were in no way improper. In no way was it a personal attack, contrary to the assertion above.
This move indeed rewards bad behavior and sets a very slippery slope precedent.
I have not deliberately posted on their talk page since your admonishment.
This is victim blaming if I ever saw it. I hope that I'm not the only one being singled out, because this is pretty one-sided, considering their actions were not in response to any misdeed of mine. That they interpret all things negative about Trump and those who defend him as a personal attack, well...I'm in good company and they have a problem. They have no right to take offense at a general comment which did not mention them, and they have no right to request I delete it.
I'm not deleting this because it's the right thing to do. It's not. I'm not sure if doing so violates any of our PAG, but it rewards breaking them.
I'm doing it because, if I'm in danger of erring, I'd rather err on the side of peacemaking. There can be no excuse for further very personal attacks, not that there was any excuse in the first place.
PvOberstein, that's a fair question, and an edit summary is a poor substitute for more in depth discussion, so thanks for asking. You deserve a better answer. Right now, our non-policy, non-guideline page for the subject is here: Wikipedia:Link rot. It doesn't seem to deal with this issue, at least my quick scan of the page didn't spot it.
I've run into this issue several times and editors have differing opinions, sometimes deleting every single one from the article, so it's a disputed practice. An editor who runs a bot recently got flack for not setting the bot to only add archive.org links to those links which were actually rated deadlink=yes. They added archive.org links to every single ref. They had only begun to use the bot and apologized. AFAIK, they were more careful in the future.
It creates a huge amount of bloat, and on small articles can easily double the page size, in some sense the same which happens on talk pages where some users have super fancy signatures where the code fills several lines.
I wonder how many extra servers Wikimedia has just to house all those fancy signatures? Are we talking about hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, just for a social media function? Should good faith donations be used for this? While I understand the urge for personalization of signatures, Wikipedia is not a social media site, so I'd favor a requirement for basic signatures, with limited frills (IOW a maximum number of bytes), but that's a different subject.
I've seen minor squabbles on talk pages about adding archive.org links (it only happens when they are added to live links), but I'm not sure what the actual consensus is, so I'm seeking information on that and will let you know. Pinging MelanieN. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks.[1][2][3][4] Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times,[1] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day.[5] The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."[6]
Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."[7]
Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."[8]
Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[9] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[9]
Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims.[10][11][12][13] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[14][15][16]Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[17] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[18]
Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."[19] She compared the research on lying with his falsehoods, finding that his differ from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many "self-serving lies" as "kind lies", whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's falsehoods are "cruel lies", while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's falsehoods are "kind lies", while it's 25% for others. His falsehoods often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".[20]
Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He tells falsehoods about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.[21]
In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."[22]
David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[23][24] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York.[25] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[26] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[27] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[28]
In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.[29]
Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;[30][31] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[32][33][34] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[35][36] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[37][38][39]
Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods.[10]
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
[Wow, what an edit notice...]
Re Prague, I'm thinking it's a bit too soon. Cohen is adamant that he's not been to Prague, and the available evidence seems to support it, barring that Cohen actually has two passports:
"Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York. He said that his only trip to an EU country over the summer had been a vacation to Italy in July. In one instance, the dossier places the alleged Prague travel in "August/September 2016." Cohen said he was in New York for the entire month of September." Atlantic, 2017
I would give it a few days, as it's mostly speculation at this point, as in: it would be big if the McClatchy reports were true. Which it would be. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree that waiting would be good, and that was my first caution on the talk page, but someone else added it, and several have concurred that it was okay. I have let them do their thing. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the coverage is wide enough to justify inclusion as an allegation, as long as it's clear that it's an unproven allegation, and a denial accompanies the content. I think that's the case, but you're welcome to tighten up the language as necessary. I haven't really looked at the addition, just improved the ref format.
We document everything here, including virtually every form of well-documented thing that can squeeze under the umbrella of "the sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo), and that includes rumors, conspiracy theories, quackery, hoaxes, fraud, lies, fiction, dishonesty, etc, not just proven facts and honesty. Documenting Trump covers the whole gamut, with hardly any of the last item.
Cohen's denial is like Swiss cheese. The initial denial has holes in it and used non-evidence. He isn't known for honesty, and like Trump, is trained to deny everything to the bitter end. It's a fact that Cohen and others in the Trump orbit fly on private jets (sometimes owned by Russian oligarchs) directly from private US airfields to destinations in Europe, eastern Europe, and Russia, without hardly a trace, like ghosts. They have that kind of money and power. Even if he did use regular commercial jets to fly to Germany and travel from there, it's not inconceivable that he did it very quietly. If he did that, then Mueller likely has the evidence, and that may be what's behind this latest allegation. Cohen is experienced at being sneaky, so I don't give his denials much credence, but he may have met his match in Mueller and his team.
The passport image denial is worthless, and the timing denial as well, as he denied being in Europe in a certain narrow time period (claimed to have been in LA with his son), but the dossier alleges a much broader time period when he could have been in Europe, and his unconfirmed alibi doesn't cover that full time period. At least one of the sources mentions that investigators don't totally believe his alibi. His word is not an alibi. If he flew a private jet, he could have been gone a couple days without anyone here knowing the better. I'm inclined to believe he flew commercial, and Mueller has the record of entry into Germany.
Yeah, it's getting curiouser and curiouser! That's why I posted here rather than at the Talk page, so that it does not come across too much like a forum. I saw this piece where Buzzfeed photographed the insides of Cohen's passport: May 2017. It would be fascinating when it all comes out in the end (I hope). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I just added more to my comment above. Yes, I share that feeling. We live in exciting times, a bit too exciting. To think that we are experiencing the possible end of democracy in America, with Obama being the last legitimately elected president for a long time. It's scary.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm American, but have lived in Europe most of my adult life, and my passport is like his. I've been in myriad countries without a trace in my passport or elsewhere, and I'm not a spy. I remember when the Schengen Agreement was signed and a new day of free travel started in most of Europe. Suddenly we could just drive from one country to the next without stopping for passport control. Wow! Unfortunately organized crime and human trafficking have taken advantage of that situation. People like Cohen can also do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe05:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
An example of how people these rich people (and also criminals) can travel without any record is this example from when Trump traveled to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, the occasion of the alleged pee pee tape.
"The flight records, which don’t include names of passengers, don’t show any subsequent international departures for either of Trump’s planes. Instead, Trump made the flight on a Bombardier Global 5000 private jet owned by Phil Ruffin, his partner in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Las Vegas, according to the New York Times."
The flight is registered, but not the passengers. Without public exposure and social media exposure, these people could travel to places and return, without hardly anyone but a few trusted people knowing. This is an interesting article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Dossier
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The Cohen material was reverted at the dossier article. To formalize the consensus, I posted a poll. Within minutes, three editors who have never edited the article before showed up to vote, all in the Oppose section. I just thought that was interesting.- MrX 🖋 17:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I found interesting about it, MrX, was your belief that I was the only one objecting to its inclusion. It appears to me that, based on all the DS vio warnings the same few editors have placed on TPs of other editors, that several editors who once participated at those articles have chosen the role of (talk page stalker) and, unfortunately, avoid editing content because of the oft unsavory working environment that is common at most political articles. It is much safer to limit contributions to the occasional survey or RfC. It could also be that by including my user name to the section title, it attracted more attention/participation than it would have otherwise. Controversial titles tend to do that, you know? Atsme📞📧15:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You're more experienced than I, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look at these edits [6].
It's long seemed to me that this essay, while dealing with an important issue, has never presented operational tests or standards that are real-life useful rather than provoking hurt feelings and mutual insults. On the other hand, this edit seems to me to have gone too far in removing context and background for the bare examples. Any thoughts? It would be good if this essay were developed into something that could be applied to editor behavior with clear tests and standards. This would not be an easy task, but on the other hand it would lessen the stupid "IDHT" accusations from CIR editors who can't understand why their views have never been accepted. SPECIFICOtalk13:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an area where topic bans are very handy. Some editors are very competent in some areas, and not in others. Some are excellent at gnomish editing and can really improve formatting, grammar, spelling, and such things, but they never get the hang of vetting sources, so they should be topic banned from their favorite articles where they cause disruption. It might be pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or politics.
An editor who repeatedly fails to understand that sources like Natural News, Breitbart, and Daily Caller are not RS is incompetent. We may think that what a person believes in real life is none of our concern, but if they continue to use those sources in real life, they will continue to use muddled thinking, and it often spills over into their editing and talk page discussions because they refuse to accept and believe what RS say.
When that happens, a topic ban allows them to improve the encyclopedia on other subjects. Since most of their disruption is often on talk pages, a topic ban keeps them from muddling things and being a time sink. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
