→re Talk:Hunter Biden: Senate Investigation discussion abruptly closed |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:Passage of time reveals your concern was unfounded. Thanks for your accusation. Come back any time. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
:Passage of time reveals your concern was unfounded. Thanks for your accusation. Come back any time. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively [[WP:N]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives.<ref>https://video.foxnews.com/v/6130472193001#sp=show-clips</ref> Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are [[WP:OR]]. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not [[WP:GF]].[[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] ([[User talk:Tvaughan1|talk]]) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC) |
::Perhaps [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively [[WP:N]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives.<ref>https://video.foxnews.com/v/6130472193001#sp=show-clips</ref> Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are [[WP:OR]]. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not [[WP:GF]].[[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] ([[User talk:Tvaughan1|talk]]) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles. But that's not why I hatted it. I hatted it because several editors have explained these principles to you and there's nothing more to be gained from prolonging the discussion and promotion of these conspiracy theories. Your references above to invalid sources for the content you are pushing confirms my evaluation of your conduct. RS describe these Biden narratives as debunked conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation. If they fascinate you, perhaps there's a valid place for them in the Russian Interference articles, the Trump Presidency article, or in the BLPs of Lindsey Graham and his Republican collaborators on these hearings. Thanks for coming here where I can speak more candidly than on the article talk page. I suggest you move on to topics where editors do not reject your efforts. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== It’s that time of year! == |
== It’s that time of year! == |
Revision as of 17:48, 7 February 2020
Hatting discussions just because you personally are not interested in listening to the arguments or whatever is not recommended. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Passage of time reveals your concern was unfounded. Thanks for your accusation. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps Herostratus was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives.[1] Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are WP:OR. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not WP:GF.Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles. But that's not why I hatted it. I hatted it because several editors have explained these principles to you and there's nothing more to be gained from prolonging the discussion and promotion of these conspiracy theories. Your references above to invalid sources for the content you are pushing confirms my evaluation of your conduct. RS describe these Biden narratives as debunked conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation. If they fascinate you, perhaps there's a valid place for them in the Russian Interference articles, the Trump Presidency article, or in the BLPs of Lindsey Graham and his Republican collaborators on these hearings. Thanks for coming here where I can speak more candidly than on the article talk page. I suggest you move on to topics where editors do not reject your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps Herostratus was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives.[1] Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are WP:OR. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not WP:GF.Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s that time of year!
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Atsme! -- I love worms!. Thanks so much and all the best to you for the holidays and beyond. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In reply to your message. "Please do not share your personal opinions on article talk pages as you have done at Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal Content in Wikipedia must be Verified by the narrative of mainstream Reliable Source references. " Could you please specify which part contributes to your ruling of "sharing an opinion" that is deemed improper? Isn't the point of having a poll, conveying ones opinion to oppose/support a notion?. I have contributed an expression of support for the matter of including a reference in a WP:LEDE in accordance with WP:RFC which clearly states the purpose of an RFC as such: "to get opinions from outside editors". Milanbishop (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. The point of a poll is to hear editors' views as to the better choice according to the weight of available WP:reliable source references, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not necessary or helpful to expound at length or repeatedly upon ones personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition. The line between the two may sometimes be blurred, but I felt that you, as a new editor, were too far on the personal opinion side of things. You should not take my message as a "ruling" but I hope you'll investigate the relevant WP documentation, perhaps starting with the links at this page, which I hope will be helpful. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for clarifying. I politely disagree with your misunderstanding of my intent. I was merely proposing that WP:LEDE inclusion should be based on WP guides, such as WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRUTH. I have since amended my comments to further reflect my sentiments. My opinion is that there seems to be a lot of opinion in play in regards to attributing motive to Zelensky's statements. Which is not the WP way ( WP:TRUTH! ). I am really baffled how Konkorde's messages have rampant "personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition" in it regarding the RFC's subject, but, alas it seems you have not issued such a warning to this user. Yet in my support message, I have not fallen into this trap, but you are claiming I did. I have re-read it, and have a hard time finding any inferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbishop (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Milanbishop It appears, at least to me, that you are WP:NOTHERE I would say that you are here to pursue an agenda apparently in regards to Trump and Russia/Ukraine. You joined Mar 2018 and made one post about some Petrozavodsk phenomenonThen silence until this month and your only interest has been Trump Russia and currently Ukraine. You don't yet have the minimum edits for autoconfirmed, but maybe posting on talk pages will provide such, however for a newby you know an awful lot about WP and it's PaG. Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Specifico. As you know the Russians have a very active troll farm, and internet presence especially to change subject from Russiagate to a fictional Ukraine gate.Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Your suspicions are unwarranted. I have made plenty of small Wiki edits in my life, albeit unregistered. Secondly, I am also not frivolously editing articles such as highly-sensitive ones like these, but instead, participating in RFC's, to get a discussion going. I have forgone any mention on how I feel on the matter, but the obvious bias as evidenced by your (and other ) comments who can't seem to take an objective stance on matters like these, has certainly been glaring enough that I feel these articles need some work. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia together. I am a programmer, so I understand the value of open-source, participation, contribution, discussion, and acknowledging different viewpoints, without feelings of grievance or resentment. The only emotional investment I have is in having all cards out on the table, and let people decide for themselves.
- Your inference of malicious intent to my purposefully ubiased argument is preposterous, and should only reflect upon your own intents. Milanbishop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After being forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019.
I'm quite baffled by why you would consider any of this to be "mangled English", but how would you rephrase this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- How did they forward Trump to the full house? Fedex? You could have reviewed your words either before or after I reverted them. Did you consider my edit summary? And the other one was much worse. Actually, however, the previous phrasing all seems fine and there was no consensus to change it on talk. I would let it stand at this point. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agree as to mangled English. The subject of the sentence is "Trump" and the preceding text applies to the subject. (Other than "subject", I don't know the grammatical terms involved, sorry, but I'm quite certain about the concept.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- We've all been there - besides, humor is not aloud, at least for all intensive purposes - it's a working progress. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- The subject is the articles, not Trump. This can easily be altered to remove any possible doubt though.
On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After the articles were forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019.
Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)- How about, On December 13, 2019, a partisan vote by the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles to impeach Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The articles were forwarded to the House of Representatives for debate, and in another partisan vote, the House approved both articles for impeachment. Atsme Talk 📧 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I support this proposal also. My intention originally was to alter the content as little as possible, but this certainly works as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The subject is the articles, not Trump.
Sorry, can't let that go, even if we moot the question, this time, with alternative language. The grammatical subject of the sentence, speaking in terms of sentence construction, is the word "Trump". If you still don't believe me, I suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- How about, On December 13, 2019, a partisan vote by the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles to impeach Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The articles were forwarded to the House of Representatives for debate, and in another partisan vote, the House approved both articles for impeachment. Atsme Talk 📧 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- And? You can't let that go for what reason, pray tell? I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. Atsme Talk 📧 06:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't let it go because I believe correct grammar is important in this encyclopedia (so does SPECIFICO, apparently), and understanding that aspect of sentence construction is sometimes essential to correct grammar, as we've seen in this case. I would've thought that would be obvious. Beyond that, I have no opinion on suggested improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't clear, I was referring only to the sentence in the OP, which I understood to be what 123 was referring to with
The subject is the articles, not Trump.
―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)- I want to make it clear that I find grammar to be extremely important also. I'm grateful that we can make improvements collaboratively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- And? You can't let that go for what reason, pray tell? I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. Atsme Talk 📧 06:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee passed two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They were taken up by the full House of Representatives, which voted to impeach Trump with both articles on December 18, 2019. No Republicans voted in favor of the impeachment.[2][3][4]
- ^ https://video.foxnews.com/v/6130472193001#sp=show-clips
- ^ Fandos, Nicholas; Shear, Michael D. (December 18, 2019). "Trump Impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress – Voting nearly along party lines, the House approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump, making him the third president in history to face removal by the Senate". The New York Times. Retrieved December 18, 2019.
- ^ Siegel, Benjamin; Faulders, Katherine (December 13, 2019). "House Judiciary Committee passes articles of impeachment against President Trump". ABC News. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
- ^ Gregorian, Dareh (December 18, 2019). "Trump impeached by the House for abuse of power, obstruction of Congress". NBC News. Retrieved December 18, 2019.