Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 55) (bot |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} |
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}} |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== Intercept == |
|||
Hi Nableezy. I speak Hebrew and listened to Anat's interview. I can honestly say that the claim of the intercept ''The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative'' is false. |
|||
We both know that the Intercept is not such a reliable source and since this is a BLP - it should be removed. [[User:GidiD|GidiD]] ([[User talk:GidiD|talk]]) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The Intercept is a perfectly reliable source, and your say so does not trump what a reliable source says, sorry. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Nomination of [[:Where is Kate?]] for deletion == |
== Nomination of [[:Where is Kate?]] for deletion == |
Revision as of 17:45, 2 April 2024
Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Just as a matter of curiosity
I remember some years ago, some offwiki site estimated that, as a Hamas stooge, you had ridden Wikipedia of about 60 sockpuppets who, in their view, were simply editing to protect Israel. I thought at the time that this must be an exaggeration based on the inability to grasp that a sock is by definition someone who has already edited there and been banned, and that since a sockmaster like NoCal used at least a dozen different accounts, the figure must be far lower. Do you ever keep track of the precise number of these sockpuppets? Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- More probably tbh, but that just means the accounts blocked, not the individual people. It isn't just NoCal, it's the AndresHerutJaim socks, the Evidence-based socks (I'm pretty sure that Historicist and E.M.Gregory are him), then Ledeneirhomme/AFolksSingersBeard (pretty sure they were the same too), Dajudem with Stellarkid and Snakeswithfeet. But I dont keep track, could try to count em up though. For individual people, guessing ten or so? Accounts? Clay Davis captures my thoughts on the number. nableezy - 20:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- These are the blocked socks attributed to NoCal100 for interest. I guess the shape of a curve connecting all of the registration dates might suggest there are lots of undetected accounts out there. There are some unhelpful inconsistencies in the way sock-ness is stored in Wikipedia's systems, but the sock categories and/or comments in block logs probably finds most of them...I hope. Misassigning a sock to the wrong master is a problem. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)