User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 17

Thank you

May

Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

... for a thorough revie of the Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Gerda Arendt - I'm glad I could help you to get a DYK while improving the article as well :) starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite errors

Hi, at Donald Trump#References are some big red cite errors that were introduced by your most recent series of edits. Perhaps you could have a look. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss - I didn't realize, thank you. It'll be the next task after this current one. starship.paint (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I and the world appreciate it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits

Hey, I undone your edit with this [1]. I am not really sure why you flashed back the page to an old version. For example, you made "The Undertaker" to "the Undertaker". You piped all sorts of links without explanation for them. You removed by submission from a couple of matches. You removed the on air personnel section completely, which is always sourced by the broadcast itself per MOS:TV, no different than any TV show. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A star

		The Special Barnstar
		For being a Wikipedian of the highest order! Lubbad85 (☎) 03:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Aboriginal self-determination

Hi, I hope you can see that my edits on Aboriginal self-determination were made in good faith. It may have been a useful citation, but the claim it backed related to a single tribes autonomy not Aboriginal self-determination. The article contained racist language, had a section on United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the bulk of the article was actually about ATSIC etc, it failed to describe the subject accurately and made numerous un-cited assertions. Thanks for restoring the citation and improving the article. - I can assure you, again, that I edit in good faith, if you look at the article before and after I have clearly improved it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Bacondrum: - I can see that the article had issues prior to your edit. It's just that when you take it upon yourself to massively revamp articles, including lots of deletions, you must be careful to make sure you don't actually delete the useful stuff. Get what I'm saying? starship.paint (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and You've corrected my mistake. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IBANs

I didn't want to respond on ANI, since even discussing these bans could be taken as a violation of the bans unless I am careful that I am specifically clarifying the nature of the bans.

I have historically had six IBANs, with four currently live. One was proposed as a one-way IBAN as a result of one-way hounding, but changed to two-way because ArbCom apparently don't do one-way IBANs (that was the actual reason given by several of the oppose voters).[2][3][4] The other was put in place at my request as a two-way IBAN, because I figured proposing it as a one-way IBAN would require convincing the community that a one-way sanction was necessary, which would cause unnecessary drahma, and I'd been told a year earlier that one-way IBANs effectively weren't a thing, and the other editor, having repeatedly violated the ban, was eventually indeffed.[5][6] (I intend to appeal the ban to avoid any more misunderstandings about it, once I can figure out how to do so without accidentally removing the reason for the other editor still being blocked, while also avoiding the appearance of gravedancing.) The other two were both filed earlier this year, in fairly rapid succession, with most of the same users supporting both, and one being filed while I was subject to a self-block (without talk page access) and unable to defend myself.

The other two IBANs I have been historically subject to (both voluntarily) were successfully appealed in February 2013 and March 2017 respectively. Lubbad claimed (the text is here --Ctrl+F "Tristan") that I was still subject to all of them, and that my being subject to them was somehow evidence that I was behaving disruptively in my interactions with him. As for how he even knew those bans had ever existed, when he and I first interacted about a month ago, I do not know, and I'd really rather not think about -- how he could get an audience claiming I was "hounding him" given that fact is a bit alarming.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: - thank you for finding the evidence. [7] This is my current vote, because I didn't see prior warnings in most of the cases. starship.paint (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appear to have accidentally closed the tab where I was going to say something along the lines of "Replying about the IBANs on your talk page. Your opinion is valid, and I'm sure the closer will take it into account. I don't necessarily agree that a first warning regarding listening to other editors makes logical sense, since what he should have listened to were themselves warnings, but that's really nitpicky." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - what's the most recent copyvio you know of from Lubbad? starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See the CCI. "The most recent one [is] here" Granted, I have a somewhat narrower definition of what constitutes unambiguous copyvio than, say, SportingFlyer, who cited quotes that were too long or took up the majority of this or that article's text. My analysis only took into account cases where he lifted a long chunk of text directly from a source and posted to Wikipedia as though it was in his own words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuck

You're both stuck on the literal use when we're talking about a figurative/metaphorical use. I am prevented from using the Wikipedia term for doing that on an article talk page, so I'll let you know here. It's called IDHT (refusing to get the point) and disruptive behavior. It might be possible to disagree on use of the term rebranding for many other reasons, but doing this is a violation of policy and logic on several levels. Why do you refuse to do the obvious and right thing by staying on-topic when discussing this metaphorical use? By insisting on talking only about the non-figurative use you are deliberately staying off-topic, and that makes communication impossible. That is stonewalling. It's not only a violation of PAG, it's not fair. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: - I'm not trying to stonewall you or disrupt the project. I'm not trying to play unfair. I have no idea of a metaphorical or figurative use for rebranding. It's not in our Wikipedia article, it's not in the Cambridge dictionary, it's not in the Collins dictionary. I wouldn't accept an informant as a "product" as quoted in the dictionaries. starship.paint (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, you are proposing that Trump literally intended to burn the informant with a hot branding iron. Instead, he was speaking metaphorically, so we are obligated to follow his lead and see the whole situation metaphorically unless you really believe he intended to burn Halper with a hot branding iron. If so, then your objections make some sense.

Scratch that sarcasm. He was talking about branding in the marketing sense, and that's what the term "rebranding" is used for. Therefore using rebranding makes perfect sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I think O3000 provided some opinion sources. I've added it to the Reactions section. [8] We cool? :) starship.paint (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, SP - just wanted you to know that I further explained the canvass issue and then hatted the discussion. No need to leave it public. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my first explanation about notifying others. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Atsme. I have no problem with your decision. Cheers, starship.paint (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Starship.paint, and I commend you for adherence to NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Timeline at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary

Apologies, it was my mistake. I assumed log entries were always in UTC – they are actually based on whatever timezone you've set in Preferences. Another user corrected the timeline. – Teratix ₵ 11:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh oops. I missed that too. But it's alright, all good now :) starship.paint (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, Just a quick note to thank you for your timeline. I like the absence of editorial comment, among other things. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your summary is excellent.

If you plan on maintaining it, I think this is pretty critical:

Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_Jan_Eissfeldt,_Lead_Manager_of_Trust_&_Safety

I do have one nit to pick in this statement:

STATEMENT WMF Chair of the Board, Raystorm makes a personal statement (not on behalf of the WMF Board) that they were uninvolved, due to Office actions not going through the Board.

This leaves the distinct impression that Raystorm explained lack of involvement solely because of the fact that office actions don't go through the board. While Raystorm said that, there are multiple reasons for surmising that Raystorm might have been involved. One option is to expand the statement to cover the additional assertion that no case was filed, and Raystorm received no prior notification, but in the interest of Seth sickness it might be better to just leave off the phrase after the comma. Interested editors can read the link in case they want to know more. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise Sphilbrick - I suppose editors are well equipped to do these sorts of things. Do you mean improve it like this? [9] starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RE

In regards to diff, I think this rectifies this. I'm fairly certain (went over them all again, may have a mistake) that all the sock diffs in the evidence are from the 14 September 2011 that were confirmed to Poeticbent. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: [10]. Acknowledged. starship.paint (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump Article Level of Importance

I get that you are obviously liberal and opposed to Trump, but anyone with a brain knows that he is an important person, especially since he is the president of the United States. Saying "What has this man done to justify his importance? starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)" is just nonsensical, as even people who almost everyone considers bad, such as Adolf Hitler, are still important to history and Wikipedia (he is Level 3 Importance) because they had a large effect on the world. I'm just asking that you keep your political views outside of this article, since that just creates unwanted bias. BobRoberts14 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You also said earlier " "NO BIAS. Article is very neutral & very cool. 👌 We've got 18 Angry Redlinkers who are very unfair to this article. 👐 The only collusion is on the other side! EDITOR HARASSMENT!" which is extremely biased, and definitely false. Are you saying that not a single Democrat is biased or has committed a crime? No matter what political party you belong to, that is a stupid thing to say. Every party has some people who have done something illegally, since there are tens of thousands of politicians and millions of voters. BobRoberts14 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts

@BobRoberts14:

• (1) fix your signature please. There's no need to write your name twice. Go to Preferences on the top right. Scroll down to Signature.
• (2) Trump is important. But what does it make him more important than the 44 previous presidents?
• (3) Of course, Democrats have committed crimes. Straw man argument, because I never argued that. Also, a False equivalence argument. How many American presidents have acted like Trump?
• (4) I don't belong to any American political party. Bob, I'm not even American, and I don't live in America either. Do you realize people across the world think Trump a joke? starship.paint (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said you belong to a party, I said that you are liberal, because you are. I also said that you need to stop bringing your bias into the article. I oppose many of his policies, but I don't state that in all of my messages. Also, I use the default signature, but if it's bad I'll change it. Lastly, he isn't more important than the "previous 44 presidents", but he is more important than many of them. BobRoberts14 (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobROberts14

@starship.paint how do I change my signature and make it so that it is just "Bob Roberts, (time), (date)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobRoberts14 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

BobRoberts14, (talk page stalker) I hope this helps Wikipedia:Signatures S Philbrick(Talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - can you replace your entire signature with this? [[User talk:BobRoberts14|Bob Roberts]] starship.paint (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried, but it still show the old thing, with a talk page link replacing the user one. Also, should I check the box under my signature? Bob Roberts 01:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

I figured out how to fix it, thanks for the help :) Bob Roberts 01:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - send me a test to confirm if I'm liberal. starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to though. Your hatred for Donald Trump and other political opinions prove it. I am not saying that is bad, just that it is affecting your edits on talk pages and causing you to be too biased. Bob Roberts 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to be liberal to hate Trump, BobRoberts14. What are my political opinions? starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course you don't have to be liberal if you hate him, but it makes you far more likely if your opinion about him is that strong. Either way, you proved that you are liberal in other ways as well, based on your edits in other talk pages. Why are you going to argue about your obvious political alignment? Bob Roberts 01:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

BobRoberts14 - you write a statement, you have to back it up. That's how it works in our articles here. You said it's proven or obvious, but then you say it's likely. Which is it? I've volunteered to take a test, but you didn't provide one. starship.paint (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't care enough to provide a test for something so meaningless. But if you really want me to, then fine. Are you pro-choice? Do you support most of Obama's policies? Do you think that illegal immigration is a problem? I'll start with those, if you really want. Bob Roberts 01:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, in case you didn't realize, this isn't an article. This is a talk page. They aren't the same thing. Bob Roberts 01:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pro-choice? Of course. The rights of the born trump the rights of the unborn. Obama's policies? I only know Obamacare by name, not in any detail, the rest I don't know, like I said, I'm not American. Illegal immigration? Sounds like a problem to me. starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't an article, @BobRoberts14:, but isn't it better when you back up your statements? starship.paint (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think it is, but I don't need to back it up if it's obviously true. I'll ask a few more questions. Do you support a single-payer healthcare system (government run only)? Do you support basic income for everyone in a certain range (giving a salary to people, regardless of their employment)? Do you support the BDS movement (boycotting Israel for its treatment of Palestinians)? Those are a few policies that I also know a lot about, so if you want to answer those, that would give a lot more insight. Bob Roberts 01:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know enough about healthcare, I can't answer that. I support a living wage for people who put in effort, not freeloaders. I don't have a position on BDS, I've never even heard of it before, but I think Israel has areas where it can treat Palestinians better.

Anyway BobRoberts14, I went to do a test myself, the Political Compass, here's my score [11], seems close to Gandhi. Try it out, I'm curious. starship.paint (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I can't currently access that site, but either way, I still think you're liberal. No need to argue about it though, since it doesn't really matter, Bob Roberts 02:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: - oh, I'll tell you about it. From a scale of 1-20, where 1 is left, and 20 is right, I'm about 5. From a scale of 1-20, where 1 is libertarian, and 20 is authoritarian, I'm about 8. starship.paint (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll make sure to check it out when I can, because that does sound pretty interesting :) Bob Roberts 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

BobRoberts14 - if you have concerns that my views will impact my editing, look no further to the below section. An editor I do not even know gave me appreciation for writing neutral content (the summary at WP:FRAMSUM) while I definitely had a strong opinion/POV in this topic (I voiced out frequently at WP:FRAM against WMF). starship.paint (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your amazing neutral summary with regards to the WP:FRAMBAN! MrClog (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MrClog, I strove for that :) starship.paint (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for keeping it going. The actual text is getting somewhat extensive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I also found your summary on WP:FRAMSUMMARY very helpful. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome :) @Britishfinance and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to add entries for known admin desyops (voluntary and non-voluntary) and admin retirements over this affair. Understand if there is a level of "greyness" here that would contaminate the NPOV approach you have taken (e.g. what is really just this affair); however, I was taken aback by KrakatoaKatie's post that 8 admins have either desoyped/taken breaks [12] over the affair. Seems like a noteworthy thing to track in your Summary? Britishfinance (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: - I don't know eight though. We have Fram, Ansh666, TheDJ, Nick, probably Rob also. Maybe I'll look into adding these names at least, in the next 24 hours. starship.paint (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again - appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request

Hi Starship.paint, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed your statement referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Cameron11598: - your edit summary [13] said per Clerk L. Is that L235? Now here you said at the direction of the committee. Nobody on ArbCom starts with L. Which is it? starship.paint (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about accidently archiving this just now trying to respond on mobile and seemed to fat finger this. Clerk's L is what we (the clerk's and committee) refer to as the clerk's mailing list. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

for further clarification the directions were provided by the committee via the list. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you Cameron11598. starship.paint (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cameron11598 - you didn't remove the comments made by Fæ, Gamaliel and The Land on my statement. All of their most recent posts there are comments on my statement. starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I missed those when I get to a computer I'll remove them.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I got the remaining references. SQL^{Query me!} 01:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

SQL - thank you. I originally notified (and linked) many discussions of my statement. Now there will be broken links. Am I allowed to write the following in a new statement? "Statement removed at request of ArbCom as Wiki Project Women in Red did not play a role in the change of user rights." starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

SQL - I just went ahead and did it, with a different wording. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

WiR tweet

Hi there. I think you've made your concerns about this tweet well-known, and it has appropriately been dealt with by deleting the tweet and essentially stating that its existence was an error in judgment one way or another. I think you can safely assume that this particular aspect has been addressed. There are enough sensitive spots here that maybe we can leave this one alone for now? Regardless, thanks for your participation in the broader discussion. Risker (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: - the apology was on-wiki. The tweet is off-wiki, to 6,000 followers. An correction+apology tweet would satisfy me. I have already stated such a wording for a new tweet on WP:FRAM. starship.paint (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the deletion of a tweet is considered, in that community, to be an act of contrition. I'm not sure we should be imposing our rules or expectations on another community, even if it is tangentially related to something on Wikipedia. Let's be honest, there are hundreds of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media accounts that are tangentially related to WMF projects, including probably a hundred directly related to English Wikipedia. They're operating on different principles than our project does. One of the points many people are raising in the current discussion is the imposition of undefined principles on our community by what is perceived to be a tangentially related group. Let's not try to do that outside of our own project. Risker (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: - nevertheless, by the time I read your comment, I've already said my piece. I don't think there is much more for me to say, except for when I have to defend myself, against accusations of forum shopping, going on a rampage, and even fascism. starship.paint (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading sources strictly

This LA Times piece (Cached version) says that "The air seems to be going out of Spygate." It then says that the "unfounded claim" that the Obama administration improperly spied on the Trump campaign is a conspiracy theory. But it never explicitly identifies Spygate with the conspiracy theory; you have to infer that as implied. So, read strictly, do you say that this is a good source for the claim that Spygate is a conspiracy theory? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The air seems to be going out of “Spygate.” While President Trump still touts the unfounded claim that the Obama administration improperly spied on his 2016 campaign, senior Republican lawmakers have steered clear of the conspiracy theory since they [...] White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday that Trump would not back down from his claims about what he has called “Spygate.”

• @Shinealittlelight: - I would say it is a good source, because there's only one logical way to interpret it. You missed a sentence lower down in the article. (1) The conspiracy theory is Trump's claim. (2) Trump's claim is Spygate. (3) Spygate is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm. At the beginning of the piece, it says he made the "claim" (singular) that there was improper spying. It later says that Sanders has decided not to back down from his "claims" (plural) "about what he has called "Spygate."" You then assume that the claim = the claims? I mean, look, of course your interpretation is correct. The piece is written poorly and without care, as is frankly typical for journalists. But I think you aren't subjecting this to a strict reading of the sort you were applying to that Nation piece. If we were being strict, then it's open to interpretation what "claim" and "claims" are under discussion in each case. I actually agree that any reasonable person would interpret it the way you have. But then any reasonable person would interpret that Nation piece as I did. Sorta seems like the level of rigor we require varies according to the perspective of the author. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - there's no other claim by Trump in between those sentences. There are other things further down, though. First, ignore all the paragraphs concerning Sessions all the way until Nunes' picture. Then we have this. It's even labelled Spygate theory. starship.paint (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

But in the case of the FBI informant, few Republican leaders are defending [Trump's] assertion that his political opponents “spied” on his campaign ... The caution from Republican leaders stands in stark contrast to Trump’s claims at a rally in Nashville on Tuesday night. “How do you like the fact they had people infiltrating our campaign?" he bellowed as the crowd booed. "Can you imagine? Can you imagine?” Nunes has not spoken publicly about the FBI informant since the May 24 briefings. The apparent collapse of the “Spygate” theory, at least in Congress, is the third allegation from Nunes related to the Russia inquiry to sputter out under scrutiny.

Strictly speaking, here's what the piece says about Spygate:

1. The air is going out of Spygate.

2. Sanders says Trump will not back down from his claims about what he has called Spygate.

3. The Spygate theory (=Spygate?) is collapsing in congress, and is the third such allegation from Nunes (how odd that they say this!) to collapse in congress.

Strictly speaking, anything else requires contextual cues and implications. Of course that's how we normally communicate, so you can do that quite reasonably. But if you treat it like a mathematics document (as you were treating the Nation piece), there are clearly gaps in the connections. If on the other hand we want to read it like a normal person, well then of course we have to read pieces we disagree with that way too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - we can approach this logically:

• (A) Trump still touts the unfounded claim that the Obama administration improperly spied on his 2016 campaign
• (B) The conspiracy theory is either Spygate, or the unfounded claim that the Obama administration improperly spied on his 2016 campaign, or both
• (C) Trump has made claims about what he has called “Spygate.”
• (D) Trump has made an assertion that his political opponents “spied” on his campaign
• (E) Trump has made a claim that "they had people infiltrating our campaign"
• (F) Spygate is a theory
• (G) There were no other related claims by Trump in this article, other claims were in paragraphs on entirely different standalone topics (Sessions, then Roseanne, then Sanders, then apologies)

(A), (D) and (E) are similar premises. Considering (A), (D), (E), then adding (C) and (G):

• (H) Trump's unfounded claim of the Obama administration improperly spied on his 2016 campaign is also his "Spygate" claim.

Considering (H), (B) and (F),

• (I) Spygate is a conspiracy theory. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(B) and (G) are not part of the content of the article. They are reasonable. But they are not part of a strict reading of what's written in the article. I can make a similarly reasonable argument about the Nation piece. You aren't reading the two pieces with equal strictness. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I would say without (B), you would have an absurd article, and (G) is a simple observation. Anyway, at this point I cannot recall what was the exact text you wished to insert from the Nation article, which when I re-read, proposed Intelgate as a possible explanation. starship.paint (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My view was that his perspective on Spygate should be included. His article is here. I'd favor including some text like the following:

Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at Princeton and NYU, suggested in 2019 that Spygate--which he calls "Intelgate," and which he characterizes as the theory that "US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump"--is the best explanation of the origins of the US counterintelligence investigation, which he says began in April of 2016. He supports Barr's investigation into the origins of the investigation, and believes that the media are complicit with US intelligence in covering up the scandal.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ll reply in the next 24 hours. starship.paint (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• (A) “Spygate is the first American scandal in which the government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up.”
• (B) US Attorney General William Barr now proposes to investigate the origins of Russiagate.
• (C) He has appointed yet another special prosecutor, John Durham, to do so, but the power to decide the range and focus of the investigation will remain with Barr.
• (D) The important news is Barr’s expressed intention to investigate the role of other US intelligence agencies, not just the FBI, which obviously means the CIA when it was headed by John Brennan and Brennan’s partner at the time,
• (E) The media excluded well-informed, nonpartisan alternative opinions.
• (F) Instead, they have almost unanimously reported and broadcast negatively, even antagonistically, about Barr’s investigation, and indeed about Barr personally.
• (G) Such is the seeming panic of the Russiagate media over Barr’s investigation, which promises to declassify related documents, that The New York Times again trotted out its easily debunked fiction that public disclosures will endanger a purported US informant, a Kremlin mole, at Putin’s side.

@Shinealittlelight: - I don't quite agree. The above are what I see as relevant. The only mention to Spygate is that government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up. As such, only the relevant matters are (B to G) to be considered. starship.paint (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I confess, I'm irritated by this reply. Sorry. I generally like you. But it's completely obvious that Cohen thinks Spygate and Intelgate are the same thing. There's no other reasonable way to understand why he refers to Spygate at the end. He's quoting a guy making the same point that he has already made about Intelgate: the media are complicit in covering up the scandal variously known as 'Spygate' and 'Intelgate'.

By the way, I emailed the editor in chief of The Hill, and he replied to me that the current consensus here, according to which they provide little editorial oversight for their opinion contributors, is not accurate. He may or may not elaborate on this to me; I'm not sure. But I've encouraged him to issue a clarification of the matter on their site. Hopefully he will do so. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me, Shinealittlelight. Cohen referred to government wants the facts published transparently. Did he discuss that above in the article? Yes he did, with Barr (B, C, D). Cohen referred to the media want to cover them up. Did he discuss that above in the article? Yes, he did, (E, F, G). Did he say anything else about Spygate? No, he didn't. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Strictness for me but not for thee. I think I get how that works. Well, I emailed him. We'll see what he says. Out of curiosity, why do you suppose he brings up Spygate out of the blue at the end of the article? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: I've already let up on the strictness. Previously I said "last para only". Now, I'm saying, we can allow more. He brings Spygate up because he already discussed how government wants the facts published transparently and the media want to cover them up. So, we can include content on that. starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cohen approvingly quotes O'Sullivan saying that Spygate is the first American scandal in which the government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up. Do you suppose he thinks Intelgate is the second such scandal? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Does he say the government wants the facts published transparently about Intelgate? Does he say that the media wants to cover Intelgate up? starship.paint (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. He says that Intelgate is the claim that US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. He then says The press is part of the operation, the indispensable part. None of it would have been possible…had the media not linked arms with spies, cops, and lawyers to relay a story first spun by Clinton operatives. So the press, he thinks, was an indispensible part of the operation he calls Intelgate. Barr is now investigating this, he says, and he worries that Barr has no way to explore this “indispensable” complicity of the media in originating and perpetuating the Russiagate fraud without impermissibly infringing on the freedom of the press. He says that, ideally, the solution is for the media to change course and take an interest in their own complicity, and expose all the facts. Instead, he says, the media have attacked Barr, and gone into a panic as they try to accuse Barr of endangering US informants by his declassification efforts. So yes, he thinks that Barr (the government) is trying to expose the operation, and he thinks that the press is trying to stop him. I'm really just reading the article to you here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Well, the difference between your view and my view is that, you think he kept talking about Intelgate in many paragraphs. I don't think he did. I think he explained Intelgate in one paragraph. In the next paragraph, he starts talking about Barr investigating the origins of Russiagate. So the article goes Russiagate origins explanations (1), (2), (3 - Intelgate), Barr investigates Russiagate origins (4), mainstream media covers up Russiagate origins (5), where Spygate can be taken to be (4) and (5). starship.paint (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

He calls Intelgate an "operation". So when he later says that the media were "part of the operation," which operation is he talking about? On your view, he's inexplicably referring to an unspecified operation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - there's a problem here. He first says Intelgate is an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump.. He secondly quotes Lee Smith who says the press is part of the operation. [14] We must look at how Smith used the word. Smith says the information operation designed to sabotage an American election and operation that sought to defraud the American voter. It's also reasonable to conclude that this was the dossier operation Smith mentioned. So you can see that there is a subtle difference between Cohen and Smith's pieces. Smith's referring to the dossier operation, Cohen is referring to a wider operation (dossier + presidency). starship.paint (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The "dossier operation" involved producing and utilizing what Cohen calls one of the two foundational texts of the deceitful Russiagate narrative. Cohen directly says that he thinks Intelgate is the best explanation of that Russiagate narrative. It follows that he thinks the production and utlization of the dossier was an important and indeed foundational part of Intelgate. If the media is covering that up, then the media is covering up Intelgate. And Barr, who is investigating exactly these matters, is trying to expose Intelgate. That's why he says at the end that the government wants the facts about it out, and the media wants them covered up. And in that place, because he is quoting another person who calls the scandal "Spygate," that's what he calls it there. But Spygate = Intelgate, or else the whole story makes no sense at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - where does Cohen directly says that he thinks Intelgate is the best explanation of that Russiagate narrative? I can see how he framed the article this way, but I don't see it directly said. I've re-read the article and here are my conclusions:

(1) Intelgate is a possible explanation for the origins of Russiagate

(2) Barr/Durham is investigating the origins of Russiagate

(3) The media has cooperated with conspirators to promote Russiagate, exclude well-informed, nonpartisan alternative opinions on Russiagate, and criticize Barr's investigation

(4) In Spygate, the government wants the facts published

(5) In Spygate, the media wants to cover it up

(1 + 2 = C1) Barr is investigating if Intelgate happened

(2 + 4 = C2) Barr is investigating Spygate

(3 + 5 = C3) Spygate has seen the media cooperating with conspirators to promote Russiagate, exclude well-informed, nonpartisan alternative opinions on Russiagate, and criticize Barr's investigation

(C1 + C2 = C4) Spygate is whether Intelgate happened starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said he "directly says" that it is the best explanation. Rather, he reviews three possible explanations, and he dissed all of them except for Intelgate. I infer that he thinks it is (currently) the best explanation. So he didn't directly say it, but he very clearly implied it. I'm not sure I am correctly understanding your C4. Seems like a distinction without a difference to say that Spygate is "whether Intelgate happened". I mean, at that point, it seems like you're saying that Spygate and Intelgate are strongly equivalent: that of necessity either both of them occurred or neither of them did. At that point, they seem to be identical. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Yes, we agree that it is inferred that Cohen believes that Intelgate is the best explanation. Well, the problem is that Cohen doesn't really define Spygate much. I really can't proceed anything beyond "Spygate is whether Intelgate happened". Like if we had "Barr is investigating if Intelgate happened" and "Barr is investigating if Spygate happened", then yeah, we can conclude "Spygate is Intelgate". starship.paint (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So maybe you'd agree with this?

Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at Princeton and NYU, suggested in 2019 that the best explanation of allegations that the Russian government compromised Trump and helped him to win the presidency is that "US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump." He supports Barr's investigation into Spygate, and believes that the media are complicit with US intelligence in covering it up.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - yes, that looks fine. starship.paint (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, this is the single most confusing argument I've ever innocently overheard between two pseudonymous netizen journalists this side of YouTube. I mean that as a compliment. Carry on keeping 'em guessing! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, June 21, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Hulk. I didn’t even realise I had somehow missed the last reply! starship.paint (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And here I was taking your silence as a concession. Lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Always happy to help. You two take care, now! I'll be back in 45 days. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

SMH. Why are you guys even discussing Cohen? He's a very unreliable source and pushes conspiracy theories which are contrary to fact. We do not give any weight to such sources. We only distribute weight among RS. Unreliable ones don't get any mention at all.

He barely admits that Russia interfered in the election, calling it "fictitious": "Did Russia “meddle” in the US election? Yes, but not significantly..."[15] He downplays the attack: "But it isn’t true. No Russian missiles, planes, bombs, paratroopers, submarines, or warships descended on the United States in 2016." He mentions all the weapons of conventional warfare, and ignores that modern MILITARY (the GRU is Russian military) attacks depend largely on cyber warfare. This was a very literal military attack on America, and Trump, by denying it and supporting Putin, is doing what is considered by definition textbook treason.[16][17]

He goes on to deny that the Russians hacked the DNC, but says it was an inside job:

"No forensic evidence has ever been produced to support the allegation that Putin’s Kremlin hacked the DNC in 2016 and gave the incriminating e-mails to Wikileaks....the e-mails stolen from the DNC were not a hack but an inside job, a leak."

His claims are counterfactual fringe nonsense. He is totally unreliable. He's pushing Roger Stone's debunked conspiracy theories. The fact is that the "U.S. caught Russian election hackers on its own....seven months before the DNC hired CrowdStrike."[18]

"Government investigators independently verified that Russian operatives hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 and did not rely on a private cyber firm’s findings..." "While the prosecutors did not go into detail, they noted that the investigators gathered evidence of the Russians’ involvement independently, which led to the indictment last year of 12 Russian military officials in connection with the DNC hack. The FBI knew as early as September 2015 — seven months before the DNC hired CrowdStrike — that a cyber group linked to Russia had breached the DNC, according to a New York Times report, and reportedly tried to warn the committee of the hack.
"Mueller’s indictment of the Russian digital spies, which charged the defendants with hacking into the computers and email systems of the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, included forensic evidence and recorded specific actions — down to searches run and files deleted — as well as the hackers’ internal communications with U.S. persons."

BTW, do we even have this information in any of our articles?

Cohen and Stone are conspiracy nuts. We should not use them, so why keep discussing Cohen as a source? Above it seems like you're getting into the nitty gritty details of how many non-existent angels can dance on the head of an imaginary pin as you slide further and further down a rabbit hole. It seems like a waste of time to discuss the hypotheticals about nonsense.

Sorry, I just had to vent. I feel it's a shame to see such talent wasted here discussing something we are forbidden to use anyway. It's super forum territory, but since this is a private page you're welcome to continue if you wish. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to 2016 United States presidential election you appear to have included material copied from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Diannaa: - actually, it’s from Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). Do I also need to attribute when I’m the writer of the content from the original article? starship.paint (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 7

Can you please undo that move? I don't see why those proposals need their own special subpage.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll just make a note of this under my previous comment lol. I just wanted to inform you as Bill's de factor mentor that I've asked him to play WP:TWA. I know of many articles he can edit that are in need of references, but I am more so hoping to see him demonstrate his ability to cite things before asking for help. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - cool, thanks. I haven't played that. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - he really is overzealous in editing people's comments. starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Yeah, I'm hoping he takes hope the offer to participate in WP:Discord, though. We're a little used to well-meaning (but disruptive) users with a lot of redundant questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

	Collaboration Power
	Thank you for being courteous and polite, and above all, a team player when editing articles that can be quite difficult to edit. Your collaborative efforts are greatly appreciated. Atsme Talk 📧 07:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, appreciate it! starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

2 users loves this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this. My eyes were bleeding. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for being abrasive in my last several comments to you. I do think you try to edit in a NPOV way, and I respect your intelligence and your commitment to rational discussion. You haven't said this, but I suspect that you think the Spygate article suffers from POV problems. If we agree about that much, I'd be interested to hear what you recommend for fixing it, if anything. To answer your last question to me, I don't think the editors here would include the things you mentioned. However, here's another case. Suppose Cohen himself had written in The Nation that Russia handed the election to Trump, or something to that effect. This is something that plainly goes beyond available evidence, but it is also something that lots of folks on the left are eager to believe. I think that someone here might include such a thing in some relevant article. Or at least it wouldn't be reverted if one of you did publish it. Do you disagree? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing @Shinealittlelight:, I never took it personally really. The major author of the article is me (last I checked), do you think I think I have a POV problem? I'll tell you what I didn't write of the article: some parts of the lede. Your last question is complicated. It depends if Cohen is still the most controversial Russia expert in America. Also, handed the election is kind of vague, I'm not too sure what you mean. Now, the chance that someone, anyone really, will include something ... it's possible. But I think, someone else will come along and revert. I do get reverted sometimes. It happens. starship.paint (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll answer the question by saying exactly what the POV problem is with the article, and I'll leave it to you to decide whose fault it is. I've already made my case about most of the problems I see, so this won't be new. First, the title and lead frame the article in a way that is out of step with RS and with the body of the article. The first sentence is sourced in pieces that are contrary to RSN or not in the body of the article. The article implies that 'Spygate' has a unique and very specific definition, and relegates "other uses" to the final section, implying that they are somehow less legitimate than the cherry-picked definition. The article should probably say something about Barr's investigation. It should include some pro-Trump opinion in the reaction section. If all that were fixed, it'd be a pretty decent article.

On my question about Cohen: yes, suppose everything is the same except that he said that (to be more precise) Russia's efforts to interfere were successful, and were the decisive factor in favor of Trump. You think that there would be a consensus against inclusion of such a piece in some "reactions" section of a relevant article? I sure don't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in portioning the blame, Shinealittlelight. I'm interested in improving the article. If I believe there are problems in the body, I would have attempted to fix them already. Pro-Trump opinion is okay unless the author, like Dan Bongino, loses credibility. It's hard to judge that Russian efforts was the decisive factor. They surely were a factor, decisive or not, nobody knows. It depends if the source did some detailed analysis to reach that conclusion, rather than proclaiming it without evidence. starship.paint (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, I'm not worried about blame either, so we agree there. So you don't agree that we should include some opinion sympathetic to Trump, and you don't agree that Barr should be mentioned, and you're not worried about the implication that "other uses" are any less central in RS than the cherry-picked definition. Reading between the lines, I still think you probably have problems with the lead, but it seems you've given up trying to fix that. Too bad, since that's what 95% of readers actually look at.

As for Cohen, I agree that we don't know how big a factor Russian influence was in the outcome, and I'm imagining someone like Cohen proclaiming that the influence was decisive without further evidence. Are you predicting that there would not be a consensus to include such a thing in relevant articles? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: we should include some opinion sympathetic to Trump - we should, if they are neither fringe nor without credibility - the same applies for opinion criticizing Trump. you don't agree that Barr should be mentioned - depends on the sources. My memory fails me. decisive without further evidence - I think with an RfC, it would be removed if it was added. I certainly would question his credibility myself, once I knew that he was the most controversial Russia expert in the U.S. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether it "goes beyond available evidence." One can have different opinions about that, but it is not contrary to the available evidence, and certainly not illogical to believe that "Russia handed the election to Trump, or something to that effect." It wouldn't be counterfactual to believe that, and would be logical per Occam's razor. Many reasonable people have written in RS that they believe Putin's finger on the scale did help Trump win. To deny that likelihood is just like denying that advertising has any effect on consumers. The only reasonable quibble would be how much of an effect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Deh urf iz deh third planet Frum deh son. Eat iz wun orf deh fore Thirstial plants an your so lah sister. Dis mins moist orf eats mast iz sold. Deh udder tree Yar meerkat, bars, under veins. Deh urf iz oso call me maybe boo plant, lane urf, un terrible.

Deh urf iz humming mill org specs orf planets under animals, clue humans.

Earth is the best and coolest plant in the whole galaxy. Earth is a place that's perfect for hummus to live.

God created Earth starship.paint (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Crossfire Hurricane

DYK review posted at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Crossfire Hurricane, some issues need to be addressed. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved up by me. starship.paint (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Oregon Senate Republican walkouts

Great work on expanding the 80th Oregon Legislative Assembly to include a section about the walkouts. I've started an independent article about the situation, with coverage of the May and June walkouts and background about HB 2020. It's still under construction, although I am probably finished working on it for today. Thought I'd bring it to your attention in the event you might want to contribute. - Mainly 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Oregon Senate Republican walkouts...forgot to include a link. - Mainly 21:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Attkisson

This is Sharyl. Thank you. I am about to publish at SharylAttkisson.com some corrections and information that serve the purpose you suggested. Thanks. https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedia-weaponization-a-dissection-of-bias/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Starship.paint, and welcome to Women in Red. From your comments on our talk page, I see you have been taking an active interest in our project. It looks to me as if you are joining at the right time as you have created a number of biographies on sports people and seem to take a special interest in Singapore. Now that we are giving focus to sports over the next couple of months, perhaps you will be inspired to write about some notable Singaporean sportswomen. You seem to have considerable experience as an editor but you might nevertheless find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: - that's either some deep trawling or simply pulling up a list of articles I've created, since I think I did those things years ago. What tool is that? You're the first person to have told me I have such an interest. Thanks for giving me the rules, I think they will definitely be helpful. I'm not sure how much time I have to create articles, though. We'll see. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I was just looking through all the articles you have created here. If you go to my user page, you'll find a list of several useful tools.--Ipigott (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: - that's cool, thank you. I may have a go at female professional wrestlers instead, I've edited much more in wrestling. We'll see! starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

This is Sharyl. Apologies. Thank you for your interest. Publishing an entire article a certain way just to satisfy the twisted workings of Wikipedia is just not a good idea in my mind. Wikipedia was never intended to be-- and shouldn't be-- a driver to have things published a certain way so that accurate facts can be reflected on the website. I know it's frustrating to handle my complaints, but most of the editors don't seem to know I worked through the system some years ago in an intensive effort with assistance from several good Wikipedia editors who had to give up, in the end, due to those controlling certain aspects of my page. So working within the system isn't effective. Also, some of the people editing my biography are obviously unqualified because they are so ill informed on the topics they are trying to sway, or are so obviously conflicted, there's no way they can edit a neutral viewpoint into the biography. So it doesn't work to go through the system: it's broken (as co-creator Larry Sanger so eloquently states). Lastly, Wikipedia editors think it's all just fine and dandy that false information may reside on my biography for a few weeks, months or years because it all sorts out in the end. But when you're the one who's being labelled and falsely represented, it is *not* okay that the material resides there for even an hour. A lot of people will refer to the biased and false information before it's sorted out. This is not okay. I do appreciate the work of the many hard working and devoted, honest Wikipedia editors doing their best to navigate and work effectively within a terribly broken system (in my opinion). I probably will not be commenting more-- or much more-- as it is very time consuming and I've taken care of the issues with my biography the best way I know how since I couldn't get them properly addressed (in my opinion) working through the system. I hope you consider editing on Everipedia or other forums that are trying to fix some of the entrenched issues we have with Wikipedia. It is also more modern and user friendly, looks like it was designed recently rather than a decade and a half ago, and the mobile site works better etc. It's still in development, check it out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Typo

I believe in this comment, you mean to say "I have argued that Jehochman had consensus". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: - oh yes, thank you! Corrected. starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Starship.paint. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

On 3 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)