→Sidney Powell: I'm sure this guy has a cousin in Namibia that needs help to transfer $100m too |
Kombucha Morning (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
:Paid? Bullshit. Go away. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB#top|talk]]) 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
:Paid? Bullshit. Go away. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB#top|talk]]) 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
We have a small budget for the story but very sorry if it did not meet your expectation. May I ask what would convince you to allow the interview? [[User:Kombucha Morning|Kombucha Morning]] ([[User talk:Kombucha Morning|talk]]) 20:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Archive bottom}} |
{{Archive bottom}} |
Revision as of 20:49, 13 January 2021
Returning
Clean slate of old messages. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
DS alert refresh: AP
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.
Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, roughly 19 months overdue. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Kamala Harris
Hi there. Just a reminder that edit warring can come in many different flavors. I would ask/strongly suggest you let someone else revert material about Harris' attendance should it be put back into the article in the near future. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- My 3 in 10 days doesn't seem bad, IMO, but I'll take the advice to heart. I think Mister Jab73 is skirting far more closely to problematic waters...upon re-revieweing Talk:Kamala_Harris#Attendance, there is literally not another editor (user SPhilbrick expresses a general opinion of wanting the attendance data in every article) supporting his position,. He just comes back every few days and re-adds it, thus staying within the technical limitations of "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit." but I'd argue not the spirit of it. ValarianB (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the regular re-insertion of the content is not with-in the spirit of that idea and have told that editor as much. Consensus has been against including it so far and he has been a lonely voice but there is now another editor suggesting its inclusion so we'll see where discussion lands consensus wise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. You have commented there. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes - fewer people should be able to live edit!
Just saw your note on the Kamala Harris talk page saying “ IMO the entirety of Wikipedia should be Extended-confirmed. ”
Does that mean fewer people having their edits go live immediately before being reviewed?
I’m a wikipedian since 2004 but am a community organizer development person running events not good at editing. Especially from my iPad. Don’t know the lingo.
So many changes would help fix what’s broken behind the scenes here. So much time being wasted reverting changes that shouldn’t have been made by
Definitely want to find fellow peeps who think it’s time for the 5 million articles to have trained teams curating the articles instead of free for all’s and edit wars. Something about wasting everyone’s time less....
Like giving everyone the freedom to write on Talk pages (rarely constrained, right?) and only the active registered stewards for sets of pages taking suggested changes and deciding how to apply them. Readers can make change suggestions on any talk page without wasting their time...
It’s late here and I’m rambling. Just jazzed to see your comment and hope I’m interpreting correctly. Or that you’ll help me better understand. Happy to connect either way. DrMel (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just trying to think outside the box is all, which was only met with jokes and stupidity on that talk page section, unfortunately. Dealing with people adding garbage to articles is just a massive time-sink, and is largely why I have scaled back editing as of late. ValarianB (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Far-right
Thanks for the cleanup of redundant words on the Richard Uihlein BLP. I am disturbed, however, by the linking of the term far-right used in the Forbes article to the WP definition:
- "today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, white supremacism, white nationalism,[8] and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[9]"
If you read about Richard Uihlein, you will see that he is a staunch conservative basing his views on primarily on libertarian business/economic principles. He does not fit any of the definition of far-right that is in the WP definition. At the minimum this should be unlinked because that is not what the author of the Forbes article had in mind. 99.7.151.39 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- All of which apply to Richard Uihlein. You will find no sympathy for your bias here, I'm afraid. I was simply clearing up a redundancy. ValarianB (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even if you are on the left of the political spectrum, I don't see what benefit there is for society to falsely label someone in this way. When you misapply the label, you weaken the meaning of it for those who truly fit under the label. What happens when an actual neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, white supremacism, white nationalism person comes along. Then when you give that person the proper label you've already diluted the meaning of the label by making false accusations toward mainstream political figures. Richard Uihlein donates to mainstream conservative Republican candidates, not Alt-Right candidates. I don't intend to have a debate, just my closing comment for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.151.39 (talk • contribs)
Hi. Since when type of government infobox is only for reality? Then, acording what you say, we should also remove “socialist” at the government inbofox of the People’s Republic of China’s article, right? Also, Nort Korea self-proclaims as a socialist state, and this is the reality. How can you say that DPRK is not a socialist state? Health, housing and education are all free, and all companies are state-owned. I suggest you again to add “socialist” at the infobox. Forgive me if my English is not good. --ZAPgon3 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no longer anything socialist or even Communist existing in North Korea. It is an ultra-nationalist dictatorship. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard B. Spencer; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please see the discussion on the talk page, and next time start such a discussion yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Politeness
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm sorry that it seems you may have been bothered by a recent discussion on the talk page of AOC. To be honest, I didn't know that being "polite to the point of frustration" was a thing. I hope you understand that when people are trying to be calm, civil, and polite, they mean it sincerely, not as a means to provoke others. In any case, I hope there are no hard feelings. Thank you for helping out, and I hope you have a great day! GrammarDamner how are things? 22:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @GrammarDamner: perhaps you're male, or just otherwise have not been on the receiving end of sealioning behavior often, but trust me when I say: this is real, and your cohort was absolutely doing it. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mr. Grammar, coming here to complain about sealioning and utilizing same to do so is unwelcome. Please do not post here again. ValarianB (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Tondelleo
Per my reply at WP:ANI, I think they're deliberately trying to get a rise out of people and crying offense when there's no reason to. It's a rather shallow manipulative tactic. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The butterfly guy yesterday, this one now...heck, we had to deal with a joker years back Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally/Archive_6, look for "ScratchMarshall" (who eventually turned out to be a sock), who obsessed over colors of the cars in question. Let em talk, respond non-inflammatorily, sooner or later the discussion jus gets to a "that's nice, but we're not doing it". They'll try to edit against consensus, and that's where things go badly for em. Who ever wrong WP:ROPE here was a sage. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Butterfly apparently tried some more shenanigans [1] and started sockpuppeting. I wonder if this is one of their accounts? IHateAccounts (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sidney Powell
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi User:ValarianB, I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not engage in email communications with unknown parties. Security precautions. If you state what news organization you represent and post your questions here, I will consider it. ValarianB (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
-I understand, yes. I write for South China Morning Post. We are doing an article on Current events and how Wikipedia on the anniversary of its birth plays a grand role in documenting the record of the events, people, and things that shape our quick changing world. I am most interested in why you join Wikipedia, how often you edit, your “biggest” or most important story, and question of that nature. If you email me at kombuchamorning@protonmail.com we can email, correspond that way since editorial policy will not permit on the record questions and answers to be posed in a public space. We will also generously compensate for your time in answering questions equivalent of USD$250 and should take no more than one hour of time. I am also looking for three other editors, so in addition to yourself if you could suggest three other people you would be great help. Kombucha Morning (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
We have a small budget for the story but very sorry if it did not meet your expectation. May I ask what would convince you to allow the interview? Kombucha Morning (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)