Kolya Butternut (talk | contribs) |
Thenightaway (talk | contribs) →Stalking: new section |
||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
:::::Na [[User:84percent|84percent]] ([[User talk:84percent#top|talk]]) 05:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::::Na [[User:84percent|84percent]] ([[User talk:84percent#top|talk]]) 05:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Do you agree that in [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/ this story]Robert Evans reported that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 05:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::::Do you agree that in [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/ this story]Robert Evans reported that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 05:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Stalking == |
|||
Please do not stalk me around Wikipedia and reverting me willy-nilly just because you weren't allowed to insert your fringe nonsense into the [[WikiLeaks]] article. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:46, 17 April 2019
Generally navboxes like {{Queensland}} are used to relate an article to other articles to which it is similar, e.g. suburbs in the same local governemnt area. Generally if an article isn't listed in a navbox, it probably isn't appropriate to add that navbix to that article. An appropriate navbox for a politician article might list others who were serving in the same parliament or held the same seat. Kerry (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
84percent, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi 84percent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
Welcome!
Hello, 84percent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse± to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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.
- I recommend you undo your undo of my undo of your edit and follow WP:BRD, which stands for "bold, revert, discuss". You were bold, I reverted, now we must discuss before WP:CONSENSUS can be formed. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Muboshgu, thanks for your comment. You reverted my edit because "No reason to add Trump quotes cited to Trump tweets", no? I removed the Trump tweet citation and left the WP:RS cite. Was there a different issue with my edit? 84percent (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe we should include it even with secondary sources. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. Also, the article is under a WP:1RR restriction due to the nature of the subject. BRD should be followed. I realize you're new here, so I do hope I'm not coming across as harsh in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Muboshgu, thanks for your comment. You reverted my edit because "No reason to add Trump quotes cited to Trump tweets", no? I removed the Trump tweet citation and left the WP:RS cite. Was there a different issue with my edit? 84percent (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (2019 Campbellfield factory fire) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating 2019 Campbellfield factory fire.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Nice work!
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hughesdarren (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of 2019 Campbellfield factory fire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Campbellfield factory fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Campbellfield factory fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stephen 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
General sanctions alert please read
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Doug Weller talk 08:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Doug Weller. 84percent (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
making legal threats
Before you start throwing around false accusations like WP:LIBEL you might want to read WP:LEGAL.
And if you have edited with previous accounts on Wikipedia, which might have been placed under some sanctions in this topic area, then you need to disclose these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am not making a legal threat... WP:LIBEL is a policy. And no, I have no other accounts to disclose; I am new to Wikipedia. Let's continue this discussion at your talk page, as I just finished writing a message there. Thank you! 84percent (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LEGAL says "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". You are accusing me - falsely - of committing libel. That is a legal threat. Don't do it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a legal threat. You are incorrect. Thank you. 84percent (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Did you even read the wikilink you threw at me? WP:LEGAL specifically says, and I quote verbaitm, "a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Just because aspects of the WP:LIBEL policy have legal considerations, it does not mean that referring somebody to the policy constitutes a legal threat. A legal threat would be me declaring that I intend to take legal action against you, or that I will take legal action against you if you don't meet a demand. 84percent (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a legal threat. You are incorrect. Thank you. 84percent (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LEGAL says "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". You are accusing me - falsely - of committing libel. That is a legal threat. Don't do it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, since you wiped it from your page, I'll respond here:
It's incredibly important to present an unbiased neutral point of view, especially in a WP:BLP. If you're going to reference the Christchurch shooter's manifesto in the lead, you must also present the well-sourced fact that the shooter was likely intending to create blame and divide. If you omit that crucial detail, the information is highly misleading. If you are unsure why that could be misleading, see the articles on half-truths and lying by omission.
You wrote:She was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who “influenced [him] above all”.
You left out:According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."
- See also:
- 84percent (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: 84percent left out the full quote, which reads: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." I think it's important to include the second clause which suggets why the shooter may be a fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: Welcome to my talk page :-) 84percent (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: 84percent left out the full quote, which reads: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." I think it's important to include the second clause which suggets why the shooter may be a fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history at Candace Owens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
4RR
Hey, you just breached 3RR on Candace Owens. I'd recommend you self revert, as you wouldn't want to tarnish your brand new account. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I indeed do not want to tarnish my account, as I'm quickly becoming addicted to editing Wikipedia, especially when it comes to removing bias and misleading or inaccurate information. There is an exemption to the 3-revent rule of "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." I appreciate your message; have a nice day! 84percent (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Candace Owens
84percent, we have discussed the Candace Owens article at length here:[1], here:[2], and here:[3]. Specifically, I have argued that it is important to include the highlighted clause in the quote from the Atlantic which discusses why the Christchurch mosque shooter may have named Candace Owens in his manifesto:
Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens,
who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control,this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her.[4]
I believe the Atlantic includes this highlighted clause to say that the shooter may have been a fan of Owens for her views on immigration and gun control. But regardless of what the Atlantic's intention was, the primary source which the Atlantic and other secondary sources reference is clear:
How can we know when the shooter was being sincere and when he was kidding? The writer Robert Evans makes a convincing distinction: "It is possible, even likely that the author was a fan of Owens’s videos: she certainly espouses anti-immigrant rhetoric. But in context seems likely that his references to Owens were calculated to spark division...."[5]
Using this information we could use the following text in the Christchurch section of the Candace Owens article:
Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who "influenced [him] above all". Journalist Robert Evans noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens for her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, but he and many others have opined that "the shooter may have been simply name-dropping a polarizing cultural figure in order to troll the media."
Throughout all of this discussion I have wanted to know, do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? We cannot have a good faith discussion if you refuse to answer that question after I have provided new evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Good to see you again Kolya! The text is troubling because the very same journalist you cite later walked back on those comments and stated that it "cannot be true" and "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens - that is chaff." Those newer statements seem to be at odds with Robert Evans' former note that Owens could be a genuine fan. What do you recommend we do about that? Should we include them both somehow? For example, maybe something to the effect of
BTW, as I said in the talk page, my opinion is to simply remove the entire section. 84percent (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)...however, Evans later said "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens - that is chaff."
- Quick suggestion:
84percent (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Owens made international headlines in March 2019 when she was named in the manifesto of the gunman who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings as the person who "influenced [him] above all". Journalist Robert Evans originally noted that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens for her right-leaning views on immigration and gun control,
buthowever later he and many others have opined that "the shooter may have been simply name-dropping a polarizing cultural figure in order to troll the media."- That was a yes or no question. do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? It is fair to expand on that with a nuanced explanation, but I need to know whether agree on that point. You are misrepresenting journalist Robert Evans' statements in the npr interview you quote. He does not discuss the shooter being a fan of hers in this interview. He states that the shooter "credited her for his radicalization, which is - cannot be true." This is consistent with the text I quoted above. He states that the shooter may have been a genuine fan but he was unlikely to have been inspired by her. Regarding your second quote, "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens- that is chaff", this is referring to the shooter naming her as an inspiration. The shooter mentions Owens being an inspiration. The shooter does not mention being a fan. It is Robert Evans who describes her as a fan. Evans is not walking back anything. So again, yes or no, do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? This is not a question about whether what the shooter mentions is true. This is a question about whether reporters opine that he could be a genuine fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Butternut, if you only want to ask me a yes or no question, then simply ask the question -- there's no need for such a long pre-text and a draft proposal if you don't care for my input on it. To your question, the answer is no. In more detail: some reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens, yes. However, I do not agree that reliable sources say the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration; however I have not read most reliable sources pertaining to this matter, as I'm not interested in the topic or Candace Owens or unknown journalist's speculation about a maniac gunman. 84percent (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you agree that Robert Evans reports that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Na 84percent (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you agree that in this storyRobert Evans reported that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Na 84percent (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do you agree that Robert Evans reports that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Butternut, if you only want to ask me a yes or no question, then simply ask the question -- there's no need for such a long pre-text and a draft proposal if you don't care for my input on it. To your question, the answer is no. In more detail: some reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens, yes. However, I do not agree that reliable sources say the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration; however I have not read most reliable sources pertaining to this matter, as I'm not interested in the topic or Candace Owens or unknown journalist's speculation about a maniac gunman. 84percent (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- That was a yes or no question. do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? It is fair to expand on that with a nuanced explanation, but I need to know whether agree on that point. You are misrepresenting journalist Robert Evans' statements in the npr interview you quote. He does not discuss the shooter being a fan of hers in this interview. He states that the shooter "credited her for his radicalization, which is - cannot be true." This is consistent with the text I quoted above. He states that the shooter may have been a genuine fan but he was unlikely to have been inspired by her. Regarding your second quote, "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens- that is chaff", this is referring to the shooter naming her as an inspiration. The shooter mentions Owens being an inspiration. The shooter does not mention being a fan. It is Robert Evans who describes her as a fan. Evans is not walking back anything. So again, yes or no, do you agree that reliable sources report that the shooter could be a genuine fan of Candace Owens for her views on immigration? This is not a question about whether what the shooter mentions is true. This is a question about whether reporters opine that he could be a genuine fan of hers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Stalking
Please do not stalk me around Wikipedia and reverting me willy-nilly just because you weren't allowed to insert your fringe nonsense into the WikiLeaks article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)