Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new usersโplease check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a new editor
Hello. I am User:Steve Quinn. I know you are not a new editor but I wanted to leave a message on your talk page. I thought welcoming you first would be best, even though you were probably welcomed awhile ago. The message I wish to leave is as follows and for your benefit. Everyone on the Seth Rich talk page gets one (including me):
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 Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: He's put it back in three times now within a period of 24 hours 42 minutes, after it was removed by three different editors. For now, I've edited my "analysis" of Mr. Allen's piece of manure a little and added it to the discussion Herostratus started on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll see what happens; I can't believe that the other editors have read the same article. I suspect/hope they've been discussing The Telegraph in general terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn: Your post here arrived while I was busy on the noticeboard thing. Please, read my comments there. I still think the question shouldn't have been whether the Telegraph is a reliable source, but whether the article/author is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on Arbcom Enforcement and RSN. The anti-Hillary comrades are experienced and devoted wikilawyers and with the Admins unwilling to cut to the core of their behavior, they will easily succeed in keeping all kinds of nonsense on WP until election day. SPECIFICOtalk21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: I have no idea what happened there. Most of that doesn't look like my edit. I tried to move your suggestion to the Talk page behind BobK's answer and then just added "done". Maybe something got mixed up with another editor saving something at the same time? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing. Still don't know what happened. I did post another text around the time (I just put it in the Craig Murray section); don't see how I could have accidentally deleted an unconnected bunch of other editor's posts, but I guess I did unless Wikipedia has added pixies as editing feature. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seth Richย ?
Hello. Did you intend to be launching a formal RfC at Seth Rich talk? If so, I believe that you need to state a simple clear proposition, such as should your edit replace the previous text. I'm not sure whether this is needed, especially since no editor has yet disagreed with your edit, which seems to have obvious merit. Also if you wish this to be an RfC, there should be a separate "threaded discussion" section beneath the yes/no section of the RfC. SPECIFICOtalk15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO:No, just making a good-faith edit, removing errors, i.e., reward amounts, and adding half-sentence on verifiability of WL offer, according to source. I believe the RfC on whether to mention Burkman or not hasn't been closed, so I didn't mention him by name. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi the reason I ask is that the RfC template appears to have been placed above your recent message there. If that wasn't what you intended, perhaps it shouldn't have appeared. I'm not sure what makes that template show on a talk page. Just my observation. Up to you. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk15:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambert C. Mims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uriah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQย โข Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Apology accepted, but it wasnโt really necessary; I jumbled the sentence. I was surprised, is all, to be mistaken for someone who would misrepresent sources to whitewash the actions of a Trump minion. That was a first! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your redirect of Klanbake to the internet meme article was inappropriate because that page does not mention the term. I've redirected it to the specific section about the meme in the Democratic convention article, so readers will go straight to the debunking of the term instead of having to hunt around for it. I agree the plain redirect to the convention page was wrong. Fences&Windows13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You just restored a challenged edit here here. Specifically the removal of this "Trump's racially insensitive statements[270] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,". You also didn't leave an edit summary. I request that you restore this material until there is consensus to remove it, per the page editing restrictions.- MrX ๐ 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX I was actually partially undoing JFG's edit (and improving the structure while I was at it). Didn't notice that you had challenged his changes between the time I started writing and saved. I self-reverted.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I though it may have been an edit conflict. I had no problem with the rest of your edit and I'm happy to explain why I restored the portion quoted above. Thanks for self reverting.- MrX ๐ 15:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For my information, was this a case of a "copy edit" in which the meaning of the article text was changed without acknowledging this in the edit summary? I see a lot of this kind of editing and it's very confusing and results in lots of new article text insinuated in ways that are difficult to parse and difficult for editors to discuss and adjust after they're discovered. Did that happen in this case? SPECIFICOtalk15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Space4Time3Continuum2x was also challenging JFG's edit, but in a slightly different way. I'm guessing they started editing before I completed my edit which made it look like my edit was reverted.- MrX ๐ 15:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to restore the former content by combining two sentences and reinserting the deleted reference and simultaneously restructuring slightly, move Trump closer to his supporters, so to speak. And trying to keep track of everything in Wikipedia editor. Bad idea. Sorry about the confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC) And then I simply forgot the edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this kind of confusion or duplication of efforts, or actually one might say completely unnecessary repair job, is dues to insinuation of POV language under the guise of copy edits or minor edits that are routinely overlooked by experienced editors and tend to proliferate if not vigilantly checked and repaired. I think @Galobtter: just corrected another similar one in the lead section. SPECIFICOtalk15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my case it was due to suspecting insinuation of POV language, not wanting to get into another lengthy argument, prolonged wrangling of Wiki text, forgetting the edit summary (I haven't found a way to add or correct it after hitting "send"), and forgetting to check whether other editors had made edits in the meantime. Keeping the faith! The POV will be weeded out eventually, the sockpuppets unmasked, and we'll all live happily ever after or until the next time, whichever comes first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I was not saying that you cloaked your change of meaning. I was trying to avoid naming any other editor since I didn't know the full sequence of edits. I've raised a similar concern recently on the Trump article talk page. SPECIFICOtalk17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have violated the 1RR restriction with these tworeverts. Further, you violated the requirement for talk page consensus for challenged edits with this revert. The image has been in the article for months and its removal was challenged, therefore talk page consensus is required to remove it. As I see it you need to do two self-reverts. โMandrussย โ16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Rodman - When and where was the removal of the picture challenged? There was a brief discussion before the removal, ending with So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC), the picture was removed, and two days later an editor reinserted it. Shouldn't that editor have discussed the reinsertion? As for the other two, I didn't regard changing the size of an image as a revert. I'll revert that for now and wait for your response on Rodman. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of O3000's comment, but one comment does not constitute a consensus. For the purposes of the ArbCom restrictions, that comment and the other editor's failure to discuss can be ignored (the other editor also was very likely unaware of the comment). As for the image size, a reversal of any fairly recent edit is a revert as I understand the termโit certainly is not limited to prose or matters that people might deem "substantive". Experience tells us it would be a very bad idea to start blurring that line, as the cost would exceed the benefit as editors tailored their definitions of "substantive" to suit their immediate objectives. That revert was clearer than many, since it wasn't a "partial" or "sort of" reversalโit reversed all of the edit and did nothing moreโand the time interval was well outside the gray area. โMandrussย โ18:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: I have self-reverted the removal of the Rodman picture but you haven't answered my question about when and where its original removal was challenged. I still think the original removal was the challenge, and B dash was in violation of 1RR when he/she reverted it without discussion. The challenged removal of long-standing content had nothing to do with the picture, it was about text. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the original removal was the challenge - I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4โ6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit. I'm starting the discussion to seek consensus to remove; please participate there. โMandrussย โ19:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments, here and here, inspired me into doing a bit of research as to why using time/date stamps on a busy TP doesn't work as well as providing the actual diffs, so I asked the experts and thought it might prove helpful to share it with you. Atsme๐๐ง18:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
atsme I haven't spent much time looking under Wikipedia's hood, and I'm used to working with UTC. I assumed that everybody was using and seeing UTC, or I would have copied & pasted UTC in parentheses along with the time & date. What does the system show between the parentheses when you're using local time, CDT? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been closed, and as far as I can tell your proposed language was the best most recent version and should be placed in the article. Seems like you would be best equipped to do so. SPECIFICOtalk19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO Thanks for the vote of confidenceย :). There hasn't been any reaction to my last proposal (version D, substituting "improper entry" for "unlawfully crossing") so I don't feel all that anointed. When I have more time than right now, I'll try to come up with a version without the "factual inaccuracies" Neutrality pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts
Continued from Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts, since the usual Trump apologists have shut down a discussion they don't like. They often do this to head off the development of a consensus for an article.
Your comment:
I doubt that Trump has any relationship โ dubious or otherwise โ with truth, facts, or reality but RS do not use "lie", verb or noun. WaPo's latest Fact Checker analysis (Sep 13) counting more than "5000 false or misleading claims" uses "lying" once, and it's not about Trump ("One of his campaign aides has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI". Until they do, we're stuck with false and misleading, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There are many RS which use the words "lie(s)", "lying", and "liar" about Trump. There has been a very high level debate among editors of RS as to whether they should use those words, and some have just decided to start doing it, and others won't. So it all depends on the source, and we do use the words used by RS. Here's a section about that very subject. It's rough and not ready for use, but is part of an article I am preparing, all based on hundreds of RS. No article on the subject will ever exist if Trump's apologist continue to get their way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I'll get back to you when I have more time. Just this for now: I once tried to add one or two reliably sourced sentences on the "Swedish" descent of the family. They were deleted pretty much immediately with the reasoning that they made the article too long, if I remember correctly. Here's a recent article calling Trump a serial liar. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some writers have said he should not be called a "liar" because one cannot know his motives, all while admitting he was very untruthful and had no respect for the truth. Others have declared the situation to be so serious that it was time to dare call a sitting President a "liar". They seemed to focus more on the fact that the consequences of the constant repetition of falsehoods is the same, regardless of motives.
Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not."[1]
David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...."[2]
Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly:
A lie isn't just a false statement. It's a false statement whose speaker knows it's false. In these instances, the president โ or his administration โ have clear reason to know otherwise. Reporters are understandably cautious about using the word โ some never do, because it requires speculating on what someone is thinking. The cases we call "lies" are ones where we think it's fair to make that call: Trump is saying something that contradicts clear and widely published information that we have reason to think he's seen. This list also includes bullshit: speech that is โ in its academic definition โ "unconnected to a concern with the truth."[3]
On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."[4]
Three days later he wrote:
Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism, By Gerard Baker, Jan. 4, 2017
"Mr. Trump certainly has a penchant for saying things whose truthfulness is, shall we say for now, challengeable. Much of the traditional media have spent the past year grappling with how to treat Mr. Trumpโs utterances.
"In a New Yearโs Day broadcast on NBCโs โMeet The Press,โ moderator Chuck Todd asked whether I, as the editor in chief of the Journal, would be comfortable characterizing in our journalism something Mr. Trump says as a โlie.โ
"Hereโs what I said: โIโd be careful about using the word โlie.โ โLieโ implies much more than just saying something thatโs false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.โ
"Note that I said Iโd be โcarefulโ in using the word โlie.โ I didnโt ban the word from the Journalโs lexicon. Evidently, this carefulness is widely shared in the newsrooms of America. While some of the fresher news organizations have routinely called out Mr. Trump as a liar in their reporting, as far as I can tell, traditional newsroomsโprint, digital, televisionโhave used the term sparingly. Given the number of times Mr. Trump seems to have uttered falsehoods, that looks like prima facie evidence of a widespread reluctance to label him a liar.
"Why the reluctance? For my part, itโs not because I donโt believe that Mr. Trump has said things that are untrue. Nor is it because I believe that when he says things that are untrue we should refrain from pointing it out. This is exactly what the Journal has done.
"Mr. Trump has a record of saying things that are, as far as the available evidence tells us, untruthful: ..."[5]
Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing".[6] He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before."[7]
Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty โ the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...."[8] Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'"[8]
Adrienne LaFrance: Calling Out a Presidential Lie[9]
The New York Times editorial board has used โlieโ to describe Trumpโs rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets โ including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost โ will use the word when itโs merited.[4]
Donโt call Donald Trump a liar โ even if he is one, John Rentoul, The Independent, February 4, 2017[10]
Donโt call Trump a gaslighter: heโs just an inveterate liar, Donald Clarke, Irish Times, January 21, 2017[11]
Don't Call Trump a LiarโHe Doesn't Even Care About the Truth, Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017
"News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (โAlternative factsโ seems to have been swiftly rejected.)
"... [WSJ] Bakerโs critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isnโt lying. Heโs bullshitting.
"Bullshitter-in-chief?
"Bullshitters, as philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his 1986 essay โOn Bullshit,โ donโt care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, bullshit is characterized by a โlack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.โ Frankfurt explains that a bullshitter โdoes not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.โ[12]
"Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to.
โI know weโre only three weeks into this, and itโs going to take time because the establishment of DC media has never called a DC president a liar,โ Boehlert said on Salon Talks, adding, โYou cannot call a lie a claim.โ
"But for newspapers โ like the New York Times, which recently used the word lie in its headline โ is adapting slightly. And thatโs something that Boehlert thought should happen more often.
โItโs time to get rid of these headlines,โ he said. โIf it is a demonstrable, proven lie, like his claim that journalists donโt cover terrorists attacks. Heโs lying to journalists about their own work, and they still wonโt stand up and say, Youโre lying about that.โ[13]
According to Alexandra Whiston-Dew, a lawyer and expert in media law at Mishcon de Reya, the British press does not call Trump a "liar" because of differences in defamation laws. The American press is protected by the First Amendment, whereas the British press has a different burden of proof.[14]
Why Iโm Not Mad at the Wall Street Journalโs Gerard Baker.
"The embattled WSJ editor doesnโt fear his newsroomโs wrath. As long as the paperโs Trump coverage keeps his boss happy, heโs invincible."[15]
Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
That huge chunk of "achievements" text on the Chao page is most likely by COI accounts who are adding flattering content about here. It should just be removed in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a really big deal, but since you said "per Mandruss" I wanted to make sure you understood that my preference was to accept the duplicate and keep the bundle at 6. If you understand that and disagree, I defer to your judgment. โMandrussย โ07:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Biden says he doesn't remember Reade, not doesn't remember her working for him, see citation. We also know the year, and who's who. Did you mean this summary for something else, POV-related? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, long talk page so I canโt find the ping on mobile. Only to the image. The captain can be worked out through the normal editing and talk page process. Likely doesnโt need an RfCย :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Donald J. Trump posing with Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C., June 1, 2020.png listed for discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.
Thanks, Praxidicae. Just as I thoughtโTrump endorsement, viral ad, no bio. Fun read 'though: less than 10 percent of the residents of the "disgusting, rodent-infested Baltimore city portion" voted for her. Must have been tough finding some of them for soundbites in her video. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who lives in her district, if I were to walk up to 10 random people and ask them about her, theyโd have no clue what Iโm talking about. Praxidicae (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: "her district"โthe 7th, the 6th, or the 2nd? When WJZ asked her about not residing in the 7th District she said that she lives in "Middle River which is the 6th District". From looking at the map, seems to me, 'though, that Middle River is in Marylandโs 2nd Congressional District? Always a pleasure to have tourists come to your city and look for the "Urban Horror" neighborhood for whatever agenda theyโre pushing. In this case, scripted reality (aka fiction) courtesy of Turning Point USAโs Benny Johnson. Snopes dissected the ad: cherry-picked location, filmed repeatedly from different angles, claiming that it was a random walk through the city. Seems fairly obvious that sheโs not seriously running for office. Sheโs applying for Omarosaโs job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, sheโs got the mandatory look down. The AfD currently seems to be heading towards "keep." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The district she's running for is 7th but you are correct that she does not live in it (or even near it...) which apparently is not a requirement for congressional seats...Praxidicae (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give you props for the TPUSA work. It's a mess of an article but I think you are doing a really good job of pushing the content towards impartial presentation. I think many confuse trying to be impartial with outright whitewashing. Anyway, thumbs up. Springee (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My honors were misstated on a book jacket the other way, repeated endlessly wrong until my next book was published.
Otherwise excellent projection on the Ivanka Trump talk page as if you speak for the honors classes of the country.
2601:46:C801:B1F0:49C6:4C51:38BB:C569 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit, why? |newspaper= is an alias of |work=, so there is no difference in what readers see. What is the benefit of changing the coding at a cost of 1,111 bytes? โMandrussย โ10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not married to the cite news idea and I only do that since the guidance says to use cite news for web-based news sources. In contrast, the guidance doesn't say to use |newspaper= for web-based newspapers, necessarily, and one could hold the opinion that it should only be used for paper newspapers. That and the other |work= aliases (website, etc) exist primarily to give editors something to argue about. โMandrussย โ10:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi there. Regarding this edit, who are you referring to that gave the reason for removing this text as "removing"? I certainly had not given that as a reason, and was not the reason I did so. Please self-revert. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, I believe this was your edit? I objected to the removal of the section which has been in the article for over six months. (Another editor also objected and reinserted it; the duplicate has since been removed.) When the removal of long-standing content is objected to, the editor wanting to remove it must discuss the removal on the talk page, AFAIK. There have been several previous discussions already, and the incident is receiving renewed attention because of the contrast with what happened at the Capitol. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was my edit and nowhere did I state the reason for removing it was "removing" it, so please don't misrepresent me in the future. The objection was made after I had removed it, not before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip, I had no reason to object to the removal before it took place. You edit summary said "removing standalone Lafayette Square section. Could maybe add a mention of it somewhere." That does not explain why you removed it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice that in this edit [3] you cut a bit about the recently disclosed details of POTUS condition being far worse than the contemporaneouos messaging. I think that made clear that "later revaled" meant MUCH later. Is there some way you could add some words that retain the meaning. Thanks for all your recent work on this article. SPECIFICOtalk16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I added the specifics. I didn't like "upbeat" and "worrisome" and figured the sentence still conveyed the same message without the clause. But you're right, it was missing the part about the seriousness of Trump's condition having been withheld. Here's the rest of the story. (Now I'll probably hear "too much detail":).
Splitting articles
Hey there!
It seems that you copied text from Turning Point USA into Turning Point UK. While you are welcome to reuse Wikipedia's content, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors.
When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is also good practice to place a properly formatted {{Copied}} template on the talk pages of both articles.
@MJL:, @Blue Square Thing: Thanks for your help. It was my first effort at splitting a page. Couldn't figure out how to get rid of the REDIRECTs, despite reading HELP and not for lack of trying, and then apparently things went downhill from there (BE, etc.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While this was previously discussed in favour against including it as a second article, the close allowed for it to be re-created if later coverage occurred. Therefore, this is fine.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MJL}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You have violated the following editing restriction: "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." Self revert immediately. Also the significance for his life and Presidency is that the Accords were his major foreign policy success during his time as President and led to him getting recognition as a pro-Israel President. You know, literally what the sources all say?! Davefelmer (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, FWIW, you seem to do a lot of tough controversial edits to article text w.o. getting talk page consensus. This is likely to be frustrating and unproductive. I suggest you do the right thing and try to gain talk page buy-in. RS do not elevate this to the level you claim, IMO. SPECIFICOtalk16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "paywalled" link, note that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library provides access to certain web resources, including several newspaper archives. These are invaluable for work on historical figures (as with my recent work expanding John T. Newton, and my previous effort writing Charles Erasmus Fenner), but can provide access to some print resources that are still hard to find online for contemporary figures. Cheers! BD2412T18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: AFAIK, the template needs to be added to each post if you want to use complete cites. Putting it underneath your signature is OK as long as nobody puts any edits between your signature and the template. Then it gets shuffled towards the end of the section or the page, and long discussions become difficult to read. It's safer to put the template on its own line between the text and the signature. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump and golf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election.
@Elizium23: You didn't agree with what appears to me to be the consensus and went ahead and used the version you thought best, and when I reversed it you tagged the consensus version as POVโway to cooperate. "seems vague but whatever" isn't much of an argument. BTW, I wasn't involved in the "it was reported/reportedly" vs "X and Y reported" discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure, but from looking at the Help desk, it appears that some templates were vandalized that caused swatsikas. Perhaps when Space4 looked at the version of the article after your edit, one of those templates made it look like you had done it. Now the template has been fixed, and so the same thing looks okay. That's the best I can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, GiantSnowman, I didn't accuse the editor, I asked whether the overlay had anything to do with their edit. I don't see the overlay now when I look at the differences but it was there before I reverted, and I went backward and forward through the history a couple of times before reverting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperWIKI: thanks for pointing out the source. I'm generally a bit uncomfortable with interpreting primary sources like interviews of subjects, especially "soft" interviews by non-journalists like Rubenstein, without finding secondary sources. I just added some early life info and a link to the interviewโit's a bit awkward, what with the long infobox on the right side. What details were you thinking of including? (And it might be better to continue this discussion on the talk page of Mark Milley in case other editors want to weigh in.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Milley talk page
LemonJuice78 never responds to pings, either here or on his talk page, and I don't see any indication that attitudes have changed in response to any of these. See here for further detail. SuperWIKI (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperWIKI, I don't know what to do, either. It's difficult to AGF when an edit like this one, for example, is trivia and seems to be mostly inventedโI've read and own both books, and I went back and checked, they're definitely not the sources. Some edits appear to be pranks, like this one. "Center" and "777x777px"โwho does that? They've been editing on WP for 18 months and haven't written a single edit summary so far. I don't recall having come across them on any other page, so I guess I'll just revert and complain on the Milley talk page if they do it again, hoping an admin will take notice of their behavior. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at all the 2001-and- beyond Air Force four star general bio pages, and the pages of a multitude of Milley's predecessors as CJCS, like Earle Wheeler. Fingerprints all over those. They're so expansive that I can't fix all of them. Most notably, I think he's done the required reading on these topics but the misinterpretation of such content is bad enough to counteract that. SuperWIKI (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow, feeling the amazement due to causing his edit condition gone worse. They're citing the WorldCat search page again instead of any actual source. According to the Arlington Cemetery website, the son's name was Gilmore "Bim" Wheeler, not Dwayne, no daughter mentioned as surviving her mother in 2004. I just reverted the edit. Does the editor seem to be following you around to pages you've edited? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of this one page where he kept adding Air Force photos at a disproportionate rate (I wanted to keep it equal among services), no. Honestly, it's more like I follow him around now trying to clean up after him. I don't want to disparage him in any way beyond possible WP:CIR, since I don't know the actual conditions on his end. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Air Force fan, maybe, unhappy that Army is still the bigger service and that Air Force general Goldfein lost the prestigious top job to Milley ? I think that Juice's editing is borderline disruptive (here's hoping that it's a passing phase and that they'll grow out of it), and, if I come across it, I'll revert and write a complaint, on their Talk page next time. In your place, I'd do the same. There's a lot of crap on Wikipedia. You fix it when you happen to come across it but it's not your responsibility to search for and fix all of it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely have a lot of time on my hands so I have to set priorities when editing pages on Wikipedia, since I have my own set to update. Big problem for me there is that I get this really bad twitch in my muscles whenever I see badly-written or incorrect edits, knowing I can't correct all of them. It's so bad that I've had to unfollow a whole bunch of pages because Juice made such big additions to them it's hard not to notice. It took a whole afternoon to fix a page that Juice added content to, General Mark D. Kelly. The fact that Juice's edits aren't noticed by a majority of people is irking me more, but again Wikipedia is a big encyclopaedia. I just hope someone with time and experience on their hands can do some massive edits someday. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you a list in time. Do note though, that among his disruptive edits, there are a lot of meaningful content additions that Lemon has added, if overshadowed by the poor English and (intentional?) misinterpretations of the facts. If the sources that add new content are deemed reliable by you, I would recommend not completely undoing those edits by LemonJuice and simply rewording, condensing and correcting them where necessary. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Air Force fan, maybe, unhappy that Army is still the bigger service and that Air Force general Goldfein lost the prestigious top job to Milley". I recently reported a guy who sockpuppeted just for that reason here. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. Pinging Acroterion and Neutrality. The addition to "Stable Genius" is unsourced. The book mentions Milley exactly once, in a sentence saying that Mattis's replacement Shanahan liked to bring Dunford or Milley to any substantive meetings. In "I alone", the editor moved one sentence from the section where it belongs into one where it doesn't and added a chunk of text to the "Contents" section that made it appear as if the book was mostly about how Milley allegedly got to be CJCoS. Westmoreland: I don't have the time right now to compare before and after Juice's editing but I will, and I'll get ahold of Sorley to see if the book is a source for any of the edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the list I have so far (from most recent edits to earliest). Some of these may be relevant and only require condensation of image captions, fixing citations and complying with WP:SOB standards:
SuperWIKI: good lord, from Jimmy Carter to Rumsfeld's memoirsโa book I'm not planning to readโthe editor's sure been busy. I should have known better, forgot about "never volunteer". Hope you don't mind that I hatted the list. Alright, I'll start at the top and add a when I start on a page and another one when I'm done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. LemonJuice came back as a sock account and made some big edits, thankfully to pages on the list you haven't checked yet. I shut that down real quick. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Westmoreland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army War College.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Trump Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.
I see that you restored the change from Arc to ARC that I made, which was in one of the sources. Did you notice that ARC are probably the initials of the founder Abraham Cinta? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, sorry, you're right about the sources spelling the name in all caps, I didn't pay close enough attention when typing. No idea whether Cintas has a middle initial R. There seem to be quite a few companies named Arc/ARC. If I had thought about an acronym at all, I would have guessed AcquisitionยทResearchยทCapitalization or something along those lines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, it probably isn't his initials since he doesn't seem to use a middle name or initial. BTW, while looking around I found [4]. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob K31416, his middle initial appears to be D. One of the managing partners on ARC Capital's website, Jesรบs Emilio Hoyos, appears to be the same person as Jesรบs Emilio Hoyos Quintero who is listed as director of this Panamanian ARC Capital Investments Inc. Its director and president is Abraham Dominguez Cinta, who's also the Chief Executive Director of Go EZ Corporation which came to the FEC's attention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Another managing partner of ARC Capital in Shanghai is Crystal Zhang, possibly the same person as XIAOYUE ZHANG, director and secretary, of the Panamanian company. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SuperWIKI, that will help to verify the military Career and operational deployment sections. I probably won't get around to it in the next few days (kinda busy at work), and I'll get back to the unfinished LemonJuice list, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. My apologies for any negative comments I made about MSNBC news (in general) or Rachel Maddow (in particular), at the Trump talkpage. I've learned minuets ago that this isn't allowed, even if it is with a tinge of humour. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes (not blaming you), the unilateral decisions of others on what can & can't be posted at Trump's talkpage, can be frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping track of my Talk page edits, are you? Awww, I didn't know you cared. Benen is Maddow's boss? I don't think so. He's "a producer" of the show and the editor of the MaddowBlog. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was one thing you told me directly last month, don't flatter yourself. Those Rich, Unger and Haberman fans might have an overfriendliness case against me, though, that took sifting. Benen may not sign Maddow's cheques, but a producer does decide what the talent generally speaks about and when. That's a boss in my books. Who do you think her boss is? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're Canadian, identity politics isn't taught as forcibly here, it's entirely plausible he just saw her as another "talking head" for the unhockey "left wing", like I did at first. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why anybody's is defining the word "yappy", as being some kinda slur towards females. Any human being can be yappy. But that's not the issue I have with Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turning Point Action has its own article page
Hey, I see you were adding a bunch of citations for a section on Turning Point USA, "false claims about Covid 19", that information was pertaining strictly to Turning Point Action which is a different non-profit organization than Turning Point USA. By law they are actually different types of non-profits. It can be a bit confusing, however Turning Point Action has its own page now. I am going to just paste that information from Turing Point USA onto the TP-Action page. Just wanted to give you a heads up if you see any other content that is being wrongly classified on Turning Point USA's page about Turning point Action. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaximusEditor, I'm aware of the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofits and also that Turning Point Action has its own page. Another editor has already reverted your removal of the info from Turning Point USA, correctly so, IMO. Sources in general do not strictly distinguish between TPUSA and TP Actionโsame leadership, same personnel. Vanity Fair, one of the three sources for the false claims about the vaccines, doesn't mention TP Action at all. Politico says that Kirk "Charlie Kirk, the pro-Trump co-founder of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, said on Fox last week that he was embarking on a 'massive public relations campaign' around vaccination efforts" and then goes on to say in the next paragraph (emphasis added by me) that "Turning Point Action, a 501 c(4) affiliated with TPUSA, has also sent out SMS messages urging people to sign petitions on the topic." And the Washington Post speaks about "communications by Turning Point USA and its affiliate, Turning Point Action". (I still don't think a separate page for Turning Point Action is necessary or a good idea, for the same reason RS usually say TPUSA or "TPUSA and affiliates". Same leadership, same personnel, and from what I've seen leadership and personnel don't always keep the business strictly separate. Montgomery and Kirk set up TP Action at the same time as TPUSA (2012),[1] and it was flying under the radar until 2019 when CNBC investigated their fundraising ads attacking a politician (Ilhan Omar).) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you removed my citation of The Daily with an edit summary of "A podcast as a source?" I will note that {{Cite podcast}} has 2,907 transclusions at present, including to medical articles like vasectomy which are supposed to have some of the best sourcing in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that it is a podcast does not make it unreliable per se. Just like any form of media (whether audio visual or print) it is the source itself that is either reliable or unreliable, not the format.
Regarding this specific podcast, it is produced by The New York Times, and I would argue is as reliable as any of their journalism (Green on WP:RSP). Admittedly, its content would largely fall in the opinion/analysis realm, which can be biased. In this particular episode Michael Babaro interviews Shane Goldmacher, who wrote one of the other articles I cited in that paragraph, about the other article. So it's not that important to cite the podcast as everything is supported by the other article too, but in the spirit of WP:SWYGT I was citing both. Besides, some things are easier to understand in the audio medium, while others are easier in the written medium.
I'm not going to make a huge deal about insisting on citing this particular podcast in this particular article when the other sources cited support all the content without it. But I wanted to say, "yes, a podcast as a source, what's wrong with that?" and give my analysis that this specific podcast should be treated like other content produced by the New York Times. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving16:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, Wikipedia:Citing_sources mentions sound recordings but that seems to refer to music. I think it's a bit much to ask readers to sit through a half-hour or so of a recording to find the source for a statement. There's also the problem that people may unintentionally say something in a way that can be misconstrued. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation template does have a parameter for the specific time code you are citing. I would liken that to citing a particular page in a book. If one cites a particular timestamp they wouldn't have to listen to the whole 30 minutes, just like if you cite a particular page they don't have to read the entire book. Wikipedia:Citing_sources does mention that for both sound and video recordings one should include "approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriate". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving18:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a foolish mistake calling it "meatpuppeting" when I should have said (1) baselessly supporting language under contention re: "Trump's doubts" and the close not giving, due weight to the arguments you and others made concerning how sources described the matter. The impression that the closer was unduly following the wishes of OP was furthered by (2) closer's addition, at OP's request, of a redundant "consensus 58" to the list when no new consensus had been reached, and further by OP's addition of exactly the same RfC-rejected language to the article post-close. But you already knew all that. I have since reviewed the page on Meatpuppeting, and the definition clearly does not apply, because it refers to new editors showing up to support a POV, not an existing account.
wrt to civility, Valjean has made great strides in controlling his demeanor, and he is a friend and beacon to us all as a content editor and a role model of dedicated collaboration.๐ผ. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICOtalk14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus item 58 has multiple errors, which I can't fix as unregistered. Cosmetically, the period following "58" is missing. More seriously, both links are broken. The first has an extraneous "|" at the end, the second needs retargeting to the archive page. Can you handle this? 68.97.42.64 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
On second look, both links need to be converted from external link to wikilink. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fbifriday, no problem, for some reason the Donald Trump page has entered into another very active phase that makes it sometimes hard to keep track of the revision history. Thanks for self-reverting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have gotten tense regarding the current views on the subject given the hearings. Emotional editing, while understandable on both sides of the argument, is hurting the discussion on the talk.
I don't think that needs to be quoted, especially since the person/entity making the quote is not named. It'd be like writing Donald Trump was "President of the United States". 331dot (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I responded in the article. It's a double quote, me quoting NBC quoting the Secret Service. I reverted but I don't have any strong feelings about it if you want to remove the quotes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC),[reply]
Cuomo's Reaction to Mar-a-Lago Raid
Let me just clarify, I'm not here to yell at you or anything, I just figured it would be better to settle this with you on your page instead of engaging in an edit war over something relatively small. Honestly though, I'm not sure I can agree with you on Cuomo's comments being relatively insignificant in this case. Yes he is not a sitting member of his party, but he's also much higher profile as a public figure than most other of the individuals listed in reactions already and was very recently running one of the country's largest states. Is his reaction really less significant than those made by commentators, or some of the Republicans that are also no longer office holders listed? For example, is him not being an active member of the party make his comments more important than those made by Sabatini, Oz, Taub, etc? I would tend to believe these comments have had much less impact on the public discourse in regards to the raid than Cuomo's have. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 17:01 UTC edit from today. You said "He may be a member but he doesn't hold any public office or party position. He tweets as a member of the general public, not really WP noteworthy". DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DarkSide830, yeah, sorry, you're right. My mind was still on the Yang comment I posted on the FBI search talk page. I reverted your revert of this edit with pretty much the same summary as Barrelproof. Let's continue the discussion on the FBI search talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
They're not redirects, they're subdomain mirrors. edition.cnn.com and us.cnn.com are mirrors of www.cnn.com, and with the rare exception of a very old page, we should use www, which is the top-level url. Isn't that correct? --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I just tried it with Safari on my mobile phone and couldn't reproduce the error. What versions of each browser are you using, and what's your operating system? --Bsherr (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always keep my browsers and macOS current. You didnโt answer my question where the MOS (or other WP guidelines) say that we should use www, which is the top-level url. For example, you changed the url with index to the url www, and both end up at the edition url with index. In this case, the www url is 14 characters shorter, so thatโs a plus. I just tried the two www urls again that resulted in the error msg yesterday and got the edition.cnn web page on Firefox and Safari, same browser and OS versions. Whatever caused that glitch yesterday seems to have fixed itself, and, no, there were no automatic overnight updates. I unplug everything when I'm not using the equipment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:URL. When you say that you "end up at" the edition, page, you are saying that the www page redirects you to the edition page, so that the edition address appears in your address bar? --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raymond J. Dearie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
Congrats on successfully testing leadrefs at Donald Trump. So far they're working and accepted. Now about the invisible anchors under each section header.... See my essay for how they work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under each heading in the essay is this hidden editorial note: <!-- If you change this heading, remember to also change the lead "section reference". -->. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, so it's just a hidden message/reminder that the person amending the lead (or in this case me adding the section references to the lead) needs to add to any target section heading. What about a hidden reminder above the lead, "If you add, amend, or remove a sentence with a section link, remember to also remove or add the hidden reminder underneath the section heading", or s.th. along those lines? That's a lot of reminders all over the place โ you think that'll be accepted? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing this idea in such a daring fashion. I find it amazing that no one tried to revert and interfere, but you did have a group backing you. Good job! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Sliced bread two-point-oh.
This will reshape how we write leads and make editorial collaboration much more efficient. One of the stellar bright ideas in recent memory. Kudos. SPECIFICOtalk16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It Takes a Village, in this case a village with a population of 4 or 5.I started to solicit input from editor Sdkb, who used to participate at Trump and was interested in topics of article structure. I decided not to rock the boat at this early stage.Small tweak needed. The leadref following "campaigns and presidency" needs to follow the comma.Also suggest you go ahead with a leadref following "but lost the popular vote", since this has been a point of contention. The body section is "Election to the presidency". Whether to precede or follow the footnote is your call. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)161.97.225.237 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the effect of multi-citation lead text is equivalent to that of scare quotes. The presence of multiple citations for a straightforward assertion or a single word casts doubt on the lead text. This is why the section pointers need to be promoted as best practice. The emergent squiggly denialism appears to confirm that. Maybe find a cuter symbol than the weird vertical squiggly? SPECIFICOtalk15:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain the objections to the appearance of the vertical squiggly are just the usual resistance to change (which is often unconscious). If somebody proposed the format [n] for citation numbers as a new thing, these same people would say it looks terrible, it's visually distracting, etc. They lack the wisdom to know that every new visual thing looks weird at first and far less weird (or actually good) once you're accustomed to it. So I wouldn't waste my time looking for a cuter symbol. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)161.97.225.237 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to spoil the fun. I guess Iโm one of the wisdom lacking editors who thinks this needs a larger discussion and consensus. Nice to see you again Mandruss. This is a major style change with Wiki wide implications. Letโs put it at a MOS page and work out the details. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We will get there, and likely soon. We're just not ready as this is still in a testing and developmental stage, even though it already works. It can be better. Constructive ideas for improvement are welcome. See the tests below. I like the little arrow, as it's not confusing and is instructional. It literally tells the reader to "go down there".
Right now we've started to call these internal lead "section links". They are more discrete than normal numbered references and connect specific content in the lead with the exact content and references in the body from which the lead content is derived. An additional function was discovered and implemented along the way, and that is to use them to largely eliminate blue wikilinks from the lead as they take readers away from the article. That's unfortunate. This system highlights the hierarchy of importance, in that the lead is totally subservient to the body and its references. Readers should be directed there before seeking information elsewhere. The result, by contrast to many leads, is a visually clean lead that is super functional by highlighting/pointing to the body and its references. Like all things new, it takes a bit to get used to the idea, but, once one understands, the advantages become obvious and the discrete symbols fade away into the background. I don't even notice them. If we can get used to numbered references, and we do, then we can get used to these as they are much more discrete. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Ernie: No, I was referring to the editors who have objected partly or in total because the "sguiggly" itself looks terrible in their opinion. I've reviewed your comments in both places and you are not one of them. (FKA 68.97.42.64, FKA Mandruss)161.97.225.237 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple target symbol like two concentric rings and a center dot would be great since our symbols link to specific targets in the body but WP doesnโt have one, AFAIK. The section symbol/silcrow seems the best choice to me and, if and when added to the MOS as an option, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But shouldnโt we be discussing this on the DT talk page, with the view of taking this WP wide in the future? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing: lost the popular vote.ยง lost the popular vote.ยง lost the popular vote.ยง lost the popular vote.โฃ lost the popular vote.โฃ lost the popular vote.โฃ lost the popular vote.โ lost the popular vote.โ lost the popular vote.โ lost the popular vote.โ lost the popular vote.โ lost the popular vote.โ
Andrevan, Valjean, the two concentric circles in superscript look a lot like the copyright logo, and the dot-in-circle is too obtrusive. The section sign and the arrow look like good candidates to me; of course, I know their purpose. So, how do we proceed from here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because a major objection was the noticeability/size of the squiggly, I favor the arrow for its unobtrusive size and inherent instructiveness. Unlike some of the others, which have established symbolic values, and thus can be confusing, it serves the purpose well, with no risk of confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, I think we may have been talking at cross purposes. These are leadrefs linking to individual citation refnames in the body, right? {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}}, {{User:Andrevan/Numbered Leadref|2}}, {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Soccer|1}} {{User:Andrevan/Leadref|Izzard|3}}, {{User:Andrevan/Sectionref|Bacon_Fried_Artisanal_Snack_Chips|4}} Probably Valjean's original essay intention? I thought we had moved on to linking to the headings of the pertinent body sections. We'd still have (a bunch of) citations in the lead, whether they look like โฃ1 or [1], and we'd still have the Wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two very different ideas. My idea was to get rid of all citations in the lead and instead point to the relevant section headings. These ideas should be in different threads. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are to show all the possible ways to do it, but feel free to edit or change. The templates called Simple Leadref and Sectionref are basically what we're talking about now. The numbered ones are slightly different. Andre๐18:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In an RFC, you'll also need to make the argument for in-page section linking. Along with what type of symbols you want to introduce. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who mounts an RfC will be the one who frames the question, maybe as you wish, maybe not. Comment as you wish on the footnote replacement theory at that time. SPECIFICOtalk12:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it. Having seen quite a few complaints on WP about editors getting "hounded" I'm not sure that I want to leave complete anonymity, even for an alias I don't use anywhere else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
About [10]: the Visual Editor does that without asking. There was no devious plan to sneak spaces in without anyone noticing. Best, DFlhb (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was never more than 99% retired. I consider my recent activity at Trump an anomaly or aberration. I may decide to dive back in if he gets re-elected. Or I may not.
Number 34 reached the consensus it did without your additional information. I suspect it would survive a challenge that she is Czech.
I suppose you could make the challenge and then counter yourself with the additional information, pinging the participants in the original discussion. Upon affirmation of 34, you could then add it to the entry. But that would look really weird and you'd have alotta splainin to do. I wouldn't do it.
I haven't forgotten the reasons why I 99%-quit, which had nothing specifically to do with Trump. They don't come into play when I participate only lightly and stop trying to improve the editing processes and culture against stubborn, closed-minded, often illogical resistance to change. I feel less stressed and more happy now, and I'm now putting my own well-being first. I've kicked the drug and attend Wikipediaholics Anonymous meetings faithfully. Hoping I don't relapse. โMandrussย โ03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but your process interventions are what would be most useful right now. Process in general has gone downhill, not just on the Trump page. Everything goes to a poll. Uninformed editors make OR selections as to what's noteworhty content. Nobody's read tertiary sources. Mainstream anaylsis is deprecated as "opinion". Closeted Fox News fans google to cherrypick a source or two that will support UNDUE content. You'll have your work cut out for you keeping your blood pressure down if you have a look at the broadening range of politicised articles and talk pages. SPECIFICOtalk13:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. What's needed is systemic change. Designing and implementing such change is akin to what I did for 30 years in my career, and I was good at it and had a proven track record of successes. It's in my blood, and preventing me from doing it is like asking a coyote not to hunt ground rodents. I can't fix people, but I can fix systems. โMandrussย โ15:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna see systemic failure? Look at the current AE thread where one of our best editors is about to get a draconian sanction for getting impatient with a bit of nonsense on a Politics page. SPECIFICOtalk17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your viewpoint is correct, that's a problem with people, not systems. I just said we can't fix people.The kind of change I'm talking about is retiring "preventative not punitive", which encourages editors to be good until the ANI/AE complaint is closed. If I knowingly commit a crime, I won't expect to get off because I promise not to do it again. Imagine what the world would be like if I could. Punitive is preventative by virtue of its deterrent value. Another sorely needed change: A dedicated "law enforcement" group, replacing editors' need to police the very people they need to be collaborating with. When I see a significant violation, I should be able to file a simple complaint, anonymously to all but "law enforcement", and move on. "Law enforcement" should take it from there, building the case and presenting it at ANI or AE. No more animosity between me and the person I reported, since he doesn't know who reported him. Any resentment on his part is between him and LE, just like in the real world, and there will always be people who blame LE for their problems, just like in the real world. No more need for editors to figure out how to navigate the complex bureaucracies at ANI and especially AE. Editors now almost completely focused on editing, having been freed from 95% of the policing responsibility. If I file too many spurious or frivolous complaints, I get a sanction, and without a long, drawn-out "trial". โMandrussย โ19:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There were a few of us who commented to similar effect in the long Arbcom rewrite of DS. The outcome was disappointing. The AE board is a place where a few knowledgeable Admins occasionaly do good work but also where many others, without a good grasp of editing and talk page dynamics, sit back and wait for cases to be served to them on a plate. As if they were being shown a neutral sample of the problems on article pages. Very few of our best editors devote their time and attention to compiling drama board complaints. It's a waste of effort with results often uncorrelated with the evidence and context. SPECIFICOtalk20:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Hello! I just wanted to say that, the more I've thought about it, the more I've thought your battery & defamation suggestion was a really good attempt at a compromise. I still wouldn't support it as my first choice, but I wanted to commend you for trying to find a compromise version! As I said on the page, I expect we're headed to an RFC (we'll see!) but either way if you're around I'm looking forward to working with you more.--Jerome Frank Disciple13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, sorry I missed the boat but, looking at the numbers, my vote wouldnโt have mattered. Went to the page yesterday to add my two cents worth, only to find what looked like an RfC closing. Donโt admins usually vote on these things? First time Iโve seen one end like this. One day down, 29 to go, right? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)09:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised at the timing of that. I asked SFR about it on my talk page. I linked to your article-talk compilation narrative of the events within the ANI. Gotta say, casting me as soft on fringe is remarkable. I don't think they parsed the difference between fringe content and WP:FRINGE, which is mostly about page forks and UNDUE false equivalences. Also not clear what fringe has to do w. civility, etc. SPECIFICOtalk15:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there more discussions that I may have missed? It seems that, more than anything, you reverted my original inclusion of SCOTUS names based on your own preference. You are correct in that I should have technically sought consensus on talk page, but my last edit was over two weeks ago and I thought this was constructive enough of an edit where a detailed edit summary would suffice.
More importantly, and given that you had a clear preference for not including the names in the lead and that you had reverted my earlier edit, I don't think you should be claiming WP:BRDR violation in this case. In other words, it seems to me you used the rule to remove something you simply did not like, rather than following WP:AGF which is encouraged in WP:BRDR (People feel more cooperative if you let them know that you're willing to listen to their case for the change. Otherwise, a revert can seem brusque.); you could have easily taken it to the talk page itself, which you never did. Thanks, Ppt91talk18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91: I assumed good faith, didnโt know whether you had noticed my first revert, remembered an edit you made three weeks earlier, or were aware of the active arbitration remedies applicable to the page. Since someone has begun a new discussion about the addition of the three Justices' names to the lead of Donald Trump on that talk page, I'll respond there. Pinging Starship.paint, per their request. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)15:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern. The recent attempt to impersonate me was unsuccessful. As for the current attacks [11], [12], [13], [14] by various IP addresses, listen very carefully, I shall say zis only once: I wonโt respond to general allegations of violations of WP rules, and Iโll delete any such allegations from my talk page. Specify the edit(s) and the rule(s), and Iโll take a look at my alleged misbehavior and rectify it, if necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page review
Good day @Space4Time3Continuum2x i would like to seek your assistance on the review and approval of Qing Madi page. Thank You.
That IP was runner up on the Apprentice episode where they all had to go out and sell red caps at the skating rink and report back to Headquarters. SPECIFICOtalk18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NFC#UUI #6 most emphatically does apply. We've done this innumerable times on this project where an iconic image gets used all over the project, it gets removed from all but the main article where the image is the focus of the article, people fight to get it used elsewhere, and it ends up not being used elsewhere after much debate. Please, let's not restart this again. If you wish to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, I invite you to discuss the issue at WT:NFC. In the meantime, please do not restore the image outside of Mug shot of Donald Trump. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not caring on my Talk page! I'm pleading conniptions after being manually reverted by a friend of bitching betty's, and confusion caused by cryptic and contradictory WP guidelines. (I'm hardly the only editor with the problem. I've seen the "newspaper" parameter used for CNN and U.S. Senate publications, among others, on other WP pages, and the bots don't catch those.) The bots don't seem to care that every example of the most commonly used parameters on "Template:Cite_news" uses "work". The WP how-to-guide says:
Choosing between Template:cite web and Template:cite news
Before 2014, editors had to decide whether to use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} based on their features. In 2014, most of the differences between the two templates were eliminated. As of 29 July 2016, {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} have the following differences:
{{cite news}} can be used for offline (paper) sources whereas {{cite web}} generates a missing URL error when no URL is provided.
I can't remember the last time I've seen an article from the print version of a newspaper or news magazine cited as the source of content, and the output of cite news and cite web with url is exactly the same, so what's the point in making the distinction? I'm pretty sure you've voiced the same sentiment in the past. Space4Time3Continuum2x(cowabunga)14:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've opposed the aliases of |work=. Don't recall saying the news/web distinction is unimportant. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it's unimportant, but that's not sufficient reason to change from news to web. Particularly when the template docs read as they do. But I don't care. If it's important to you, I'm prepared to drop it. โMandrussย โ15:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By one editor, IIRC. That's why I recommended taking it to Village Pump, preferably in an RfC. In my view, using the bottom-up model โ fighting such battles at article level โ is an exercise in futility and a source of endless frustration. โMandrussย โ02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The straw that broke the camel's back โ 600 bytes here, 400 bytes there, category enthusiasts adding categories such as [[Category:Living people]] (Possibly living people, missing people, and dead people are not included here). We'll see how the wiki-lawyers feel about it. Space4Time3Continuum2x(cowabunga)15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump / Plaza
RE: attorney] - the lead lender represented the consortium in the negotiations. There were not 16 lawfirms at the negotiations. I think the prior text better represented the statement about the consortium's action and motivation. They were not splintered. The full NYT quote shows Pomerantz speaking for the group:
The banks could have easily toppled Mr. Trump into personal bankruptcy, โbut we all agreed that heโd be better alive than dead,โ said Alan Pomerantz, then head of the real estate department at Weil. โWe needed him to help sell all of his assets, and the deal was that as he sold off more, weโd reduce his personal guarantee.โ
Could you elaborate on your reason for removing the LA Times ref? Wallach was Trump's operative trying desperately to spin the news media and finagle some ongoing role for Trump with the new owners, who understood that he had run the place into the ground. SPECIFICOtalk13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Shouldn't we be discussing this on the Trump talk page?) The NYT interviewed Pomerantz in 2016 about the 1995 negotiations with Trump. The article says that they took place in the law offices of the law firm representing Citibank and that Pomerantz was the head of their real estate department. It doesn't say what role he had in the negotiations. I don't see that the page needs the LA Times article. The NYT articles have more in-depth information on the 1995 deal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)20:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was worth the typical overblown discussions on article talk. It's not important either way. I do think the LA Times adds context to Trump's situation and how he was regarded and treated, but either way is OK with me. SPECIFICOtalk21:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that, or I would have made the correction. The issue stems from the date, you added Williams 2004, and the cite is for Williams 1998. The reference and the cite have to match exactly, otherwise they cause a "no target error". I've fixed the issue with this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterestedโtransmissionsโ ยฐco-ordsยฐ 12:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For knowledge of the subject matter, fearless but judicious use of revert, commitment to process, and general competence at Donald Trump. I hope you'll see us through to the end of the Trump nightmare. I rarely give barnstars, so consider yourself privileged! โMandrussย โ15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Don't worry, just affixing the bayonet before continuing up Missionary Ridge. My last edit on Nov 6 (NOTNEWS) survived for a full 41 minutes, and how do you handle dozens of new editors ignoring 24-hr BRD and consensus violations? Some 600 edits later, it will take me a while to compare the last stable version with the current free-for-all. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐17:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently made edits related to the ArabโIsraeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the ArabโIsraeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.ย Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So anyway. I understand there's a widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) that consensus can be established by a sequence of article reverts, with no "discussion" beyond edit summaries. I think that's supported somewhere in the PAGs, probably at WP:CONSENSUS. There's another widely-accepted principle (paradigm?) about de facto consensus and status quo ante, which is also probably supported somewhere in the PAGs. And yet another that contested edits should be removed pending consensus.
The first principle appears to be rooted in a desire to save time and reduce bureaucracy, nothing else.
I don't like the first one, and I wasn't comfortable with your Oct 12 re-revert after I became aware of it on the 22nd (I wasn't paying that much attention at first). After DeathTrain's challenge, I think the article should have been left alone pending talk page consensus to change it. Even if the challenge made no sense to you. Your editsum, "Because?", implied that DeathTrain needed to expound on their NPOV objection in their editsum, which seems entirely impractical to me. At that point, the only way DeathTrain could answer your question was by re-re-reverting with another editsum. And this could have gone on for another dozen or so reverts, potentially with other editors jumping into the consensus-by-reversion fray. Make that make sense. The "discussion" in the editsums doesn't keep it from looking a lot like edit warring. It wasn't DT's responsibility to start a TP discussion to answer your question; SPECIFICO was the one who made the initial change and it was SPECIFICO's responsibility to defend it.
After ten years, I still fail to see how the different principles can coexist, and that kind of thing (colliding widely-accepted principles) seems to happen a lot at en-wiki. How do you resolve this? โMandrussย โ04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I started hyperventilating when I saw six alerts at the top of the page, wondering which particular mob I had offended. False alarm, fortunately.)
By taking a deep breath and looking at the Talk page before editing? Three edits by three different editors aren't an edit war. I shouldn't have reverted DeathTrain's challenge of the newly added clause (I didn't remember the discussion on my talk page until you mentioned NeilN). Instead, I should have asked them on the talk page what was POV about the added text. Specifico isn't to blame here at all, she started a discussion on the talk page 20 minutes after DeathTrain's revert. I noticed the discussion half an hour after my revert, so my bad again that I didn't self-revert at that time.
I still do think that editors shouldn't just cite POV, NPOV, etc. in the edit summary without adding the specific reason(s), either there or on the talk page. Turns out the objection was undue weight and a disproportionate aspect for the lead section. That's a basis for discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga)18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I noticed this edit of yours, and did not quite understand what "Consensus #60" refers to. Is there a list of consensuses relating to that article somewhere, or did you perhaps mean "consensus on talk archive #60", or something like that? - Ljleppan (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll note (heh) the note at the top of that section asking for any references to it to be wikilinked: I, for one, was looking for that content (or a link to it) from the banner section which includes e.g. the FAQ. (I'll also note that I also fail to see what about those links was MOS:EGG'y, but that's neither here nor there). Ljleppan (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any way, maybe a skin or script, to create a link on each talk page (or article) section heading line that can be clicked to take one back to the top of the page? Some websites provide such links. It would be nice here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: I went with the first mention in Weaving and various online mentions ([16], [17], etc. 1970 was the first edition of the book (where did you find it?). Does the book contain WP's exact text passage? The citation says it's on p. 114 of the second edition but, considering the subject matter, there probably weren't a lot of changes from one edition to the next. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to research the history of the quote in the Wikipedia article to figure out whether it's an acceptable paraphrase or plagiarism or something else. It's been referenced to a particular page (114) in a particular book. I thought I successfully tracked down a copy of the book at a nearby university, but when I visited the University today, they had the 1970 edition not the 1974 second edition. I didn't find what I was looking for and I'm separately asking my town librarian to see if she can track down a copy of the 1974 edition.However, the 1970 version did use "repp".
I see other sources such as the one you supplied we have a single p, but I see that Merriam-Webster uses two.
Barring the extremely unlikely possibility that Collier used repp in her 1970 book and changed it in 1974 I'd say it is a virtual certainty that the spelling used by her has the doubled letter.
It appears that both spellings are acceptable, but given that the word is associated with a specific book we should use that version. As I mentioned I'm still trying to track down the 1974 version which will take some time, and if by some miracle the spelling is changed I will report the change. S Philbrick(Talk)22:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No notification was sent because no new signature was added in the same edit. But it makes it look like a notification was sent, which can cause problems in some situations. An unfortunate fact of life that apparently can't be fixed by the developers. โMandrussย โ20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also see cases where a ping and a signature were added in the same edit, but the coding of the ping was botched. Editors think they can fix that by correcting the coding, but they can't. Like I said, unfortunate. โMandrussย โ20:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The complete "rule" is: If a correctly coded ping and a valid signature are added in the same edit, and the target is a registered username (doesn't work for IPs), a notification will be sent. Otherwise, not. โMandrussย โ21:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am unable to add this information to the talk page of Donald Trump myself but I can see you are an active editor there. I'm sorry for not following proper procedure by not registering and then adding this directly to the talk page for Donald Trump, but this is the only point of contention I have.
In the intro, it says Trump is the "only former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime". That makes it sound like plenty of "current" presidents have been. This is also a mistake I see from much of the media. Trump is the first president, period, convicted of a crime, regardless of former or current status? But then again, before asking you this, I did a search and apparently George W. Bush pleaded guilty to misdemeanor offense of drunk driving. I don't know all about U.S. law, but if he had to plead guilty to something, isn't a misdemeanor a criminal offense?
The restriction on the talk page has expired, so you can now take this to the Talk page. Trump wasn't president last Thursday, so, IMO, "first president convicted of a crime" is also wrong. I'd much prefer to keep stats out of the lead, anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐13:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buster7: The sources in Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Arraignment and others I looked at don't mention it, and he didn't have to report to jail. Snopes says that "under arrest" meant Trump was in the custody of New York authorities while he was processed and arraigned at the Manhattan district attorneyโs office in the Criminal Courts Building in Manhattan. In Atlanta, a person surrendering for arrest goes to Fulton County Jail and is processed by Sheriff's deputies. That probably accounts for the inmate number. Trump pleaded not guilty, waived arraignment, and was then released on his own recognizance, in and out in 20 minutes. The arraignment took place 4 days later, via video. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐16:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I may not choose to say or do much at the various important Citizen Trump articles, I do pay attention via my watchlist. Thank you for the careful article management and informative edit summaries. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice after submit (and in stark contrast to preview) that those had fallen all the way to bottom of page where they did not belong,
and I briefly tried to look at other examples on the page for how to avoid that but for some reason (my own lack of sleep) I couldn't figure it out (drawing the conclusion that maybe it was inevitable unless one was using a full Template:Citation which I did not feel in a position to do)
so I instead motivated-ly-reasoned that since the last thing on the page at that time was my self-reply xrefing to the discussion that the notes were from "I guess its fine" and went to bed
but as a habitual footnoter (I have auto-replace macros bound for the pre-sup-ed unicoed ยน ยฒ etc on my phone), its good that I know this now, before I stumble into any more Talk pages and make a mess
(like I said, I kinda hope I can find my way to caring more about non-DJT articles without falling back into the 3, 2, and 8 year hiatuses as a more-than-lurking wikipedian you'll find if you look at my contributions page [I did make a few minor edits and such here and there as an IP in the interm, but not many])
Anyway, between this and my last reply back on that one talk page, thats enough of my rambling for you; but again, thanks ๐ Donald Guy (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Guy: No problem โ 14,500+ edits in, and I still come across templates and guidelines I don't know on a fairly regular basis. As for caring more, I mostly edit AmPol articles, and just reading the news often sends me to pages on people or events I was only dimly aware of or was completely ignorant of. Beats hobbies that make me risk life and limb, I figure. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐13:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump: Religion
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I only undid a revision you made to get the citation content back. I then deleted the edits I had made that you objected to. The only thing I left was where Trump said in 2015 he was Presbyterian, but I also shortened it as well since you rightfully mentioned the article is already long. I wanted to leave a message here so you know in advance that I did not undo your revision to just leave up things about which there was disagreement. I removed those sentences again. Thank you for your time. SeminarianJohn (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SeminarianJohn, I don't understand. The difference between your reverted initial edit and the last ones is that you removed the direct quote and replaced the HuffPo cite with Pew Research. Why do we need to tell readers in 2024 what Trump said nine years ago? This discussion would be better on the Donald Trump talk page; other editors were involved in that section. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important because the section is about his religion, mentions his parents' church, and concludes with him switching his public identity to "non-denominational Protestant." I think it makes sense to put what he was "switching" from. In this case, he identified publicly as Presbyterian for most of his presidency until 2020.
I think someone else removed the Huffpo because actually I tried to find it; that's why I reverted to find the citations again. But, it looks like it didn't come back up. I did add another CNN and Pew Research (which is probably better than Huffpo anyway in terms of RS quality). The only change I've left up is the short statement that he said he was Presbyterian. I deleted the other sentences you had removed. I just did not want you to see the notification and think I left up sentences to which you had objected and removed. If you decide to remove even that last sentence, it's not worth arguing about it for me; I won't try and add it back. I just thought it helped explain the section and the conclusion better. SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChiTrib/WaPo
Like I said, I would use the WaPo original instead, but it's definitely paywalled. Prefer a free source when available. Did you miss that, or disagree with it? โMandrussย โ20:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw it. But it's not a Chicago Tribune article. They credit WaPo, including the authors - WaPo appears to have added a third author in a later edition. We'd have to credit WaPo, as well, I think, possibly with "via Chicago Tribune". IMO it's better to use the original. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation of the proposed content of the Trump topic
Hello. As far as I know, I followed your suggestion, which means that since the content already exists in another subtitle, there is no need to duplicate that part, so I supplemented the content that was lacking in the original part.
For this reason, I think it is reasonable to leave the supplemented content as it is. However, * For this reason, I think it is reasonable to leave the supplemented content as it is. However, I will also ask other users' opinions on the Talk page Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points on the reversion, however I don't see how the "c" being capitalized or not on the cite web template is an issue. Seems like WP:LAME territory that didn't even need to be mentioned in the edit description if you ask me, unless you can provide a valid reason for it otherwise. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GalaxyFighter55: Sorry for the late response. I believe the point being made was that "it doesn't do any harm" is a bad reason for any edit; every edit should be an improvement. This is actually written down somewhere in the guidelines, although I can't put my finger on it. That capitalization didn't improve anything, and in fact could be misleading to newer editors who don't know that "cite" and "Cite" have the same effect and are completely interchangeable. It was worth a few words in an edit summary, in my opinion. The article currently uses "Cite" 22 out of 839 times, but the existence of bad stuff never justifies the addition of more bad stuff. Besides, changing an existing "cite" to "Cite" is a different animal from coding "Cite" in the initial add. โMandrussย โ21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, I think I've seen "RfC" used informally before - couldn't think of anything better. Add "thoughts?" to the headings? Both discussions involved just me and one other editor. The RfCs resulted in a few additional opinions, but nothing conclusive. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen "RfC" used informally before - You're correct. Others have made the same mistake, most likely because they saw someone else make it. Downside exceeds upside. โMandrussย โ16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Comments?" but seems to me every new section is either a request for comments (~99%) or some kind of notice (~1%). โMandrussย โ17:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your revert on the Donald Trump article: [21]. I think the fact Trump personally commuted a cop killer's sentence is truly unusual and thus noteworthy given he is generally considered a supporter of law enforcement and an ally of the police, so the fact he did that is considered a rare anomaly, which is what the sources I added point out. I believe it deserves a spot on his main page especially when the previous sentence, "The pardons of three military service members convicted of or charged with violent crimes were opposed by military leaders." is included and doesn't really say anything. Why is that sentence included but the one I added not? The sentence I added is far more notable due to the fact it points to a true anomaly in Trump's presidency, policies, and overall principals. Inexpiable (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inexpiable: You need to start this discussion on Talk:Donald Trump. We obviously disagree on this matter but maybe other editors will agree with you. Davidson had served 28 years of his sentence, unlike many of the other people who were pardoned by Trump or whose sentences he commuted, and we don't mention any of them by name. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐18:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
With the American Presidential election right around the corner, the current American political scene is as contentious as ever. Articles about the 2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related are also contentious. As many editors push agendas left and right, article management and protection is extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles(s) for reliance on the truth and Reliable Sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) these articles would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
The current American political scene is as contentious as ever. At articles about the 2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related many editors push agendas left and right. Article management and protection becomes extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles(s) for reliance on the truth and reliable sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) the article would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.
Hey man, you are perhaps the most active contributor on Wikipedia to Trump-related articles. Respectfully, I don't think it's great for the project for you to refer to him and his voters as you have on your user page. There are enough claims of bias as it is, and it's only going to get worse. Riposte97 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the WP stats; there must be dozens of Trump-related articles that I haven't contributed to. What I do know is that I have read many, if not most, reliable sources (books, articles) on Trump and tried to add reliable information to WP. My opinion of Trump is no secret, I think, and I'm doing my best to keep it out of all articles I have worked on. The claims of bias, in my experience, are made by editors who misunderstand WP:NPOV and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Anyway, I haven't called anyone names. I've mostly cited Trump and Trump critics with a few short comments that may be mildly mocking in tone. Getting worse: can't get much worse that it's been lately, and for some reason people seem to interpret WP:LEAD as "edit lead first, someone may follow up with content in the body that nobody reads anyway". Oh well, we'll get through this, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐10:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who moved and modified the DO NOT CHANGE. As I saw it, #20 says the lead should include the "exact wording": "His election and policies have sparked numerous protests", not that it necessarily has to be a standalone sentence. I don't see how that level of rigidity enforces process or serves the article.
So now we're back to what I had, except that the DO NOT CHANGE refers to a "preceding sentence" that is a sentence fragment, not a sentence. That would be a step backward. โMandrussย โ01:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Yesterday you deleted the ABC announcement from the Trump page while Talk page discussion was taking place, normally reverts are done after discussion on Talk ends. My concern is less with this one edit, rather than the fact that all of Trump initiated lawsuits appear to be excluded from that section which refers to "Civil lawsuits" in its section title. That's not the way his Lawsuits page is set up, which includes both suits for and against him. The addition of the new polls lawsuit is being seen in the Sunday press today as a continuation of the ABC lawsuit settlement and might be paired together with it and summarized on the main page. As you stated it: "Trump suing the Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, owned by Gatehouse Media, owned by Fortress Investment". The main Trump biography should not exclude all of the lawsuits which he is bringing against outside institutions.ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, at the Donald Trump article we've interpreted WP:EDITCON and WP:EPTALK as follows: any insertion or removal of content in the last four to six weeks is a bold edit. If an edit is challenged by revert, the insertion/removal must be discussed on the Talk page, and, until and unless a new consensus is reached, the consensus version, in this case without mention of the ABC News settlement, is retained. You and an IP address editor who was blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing on the Donald Trump talk page are supporting the addition while two editors oppose it. The defamation lawsuit against ABC News is one of nine we mention at Defamation matters โ there are others we don't mention โ but not in the top bio. Legal experts don't expect the consumer fraud case against the Des Moines Register to be successful but who knows? (Masayoshi Son may want the paper to settle as a favor to be repaid in kind.) If Trump and/or "his" Department of Justice go after news organizations during his second term that would probably go into the top bio. Space4Time3Continuum2x๐17:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back on this. I've just noticed that someone seems to have flagged that section with an article split request, which seems to miss the point that there is already the separate Legal Affairs page for Trump which you mention above. Good holidays. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year!
