User talk:Humanengr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:59, 17 October 2017

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Humanengr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't create sandboxes in the wrong namespace

Please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I violated a protocol. I was new to sandboxes. Thanks. humanengr (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chroma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Chesnaught555. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Cogito ergo sum— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ches (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per discussion on my user page. --Ches (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Humanengr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Interference

Regarding this [1]. Many editors have asked you and others in the small minority that's repeatedly pushing this point to "drop the stick". If you do anything to inflame the talk page and promote further disruption, this is very likely to result in enforcement actions relating to the Discretionary Sanctions. Inviting more editors to further disrupt this page is a very bad idea, and I hope you will not pursue it. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the proposal I made -- which Geogene actually suggested -- in RfC: Proposed lead section. If Geogene and I can communicate peaceably, and productively perhaps we can as well. Humanengr (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFG has given you the same advice I articulated above. So have various editors at the Teahouse. As Obama said to Putin, you will end up blocked if you don't cut it out. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Did you read the proposal I made at JFG's suggestion in the survey section of his RfC? Also pls note re my 'invite' that my intent was to invite YOU and others on your side. (JFG suggested an additional refinement in the Discussion section.) Humanengr (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, none of the editors who oppose your disruptive conduct have a "side" or a POV. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read my proposal (that JFG invited) in the Survey section of the RfC and JFG's further mod in the Discussion section. Humanengr (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pinging me to JFG's page? We both told you not to WP:CANVASS -- that would be a very bad move, and so far you've not done it. Nothing worth belaboring to either of us. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for clarifying that the reference was to 'canvas'. Humanengr (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly ignore: ~~{re|SPErCIFICO}} I'm impressed with the volume of your responses. Why did you post here regarding a question I had asked JFG and JFG had already answered?~~ Humanengr (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions are in force on an article you have edited

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Russian WP:SOAPBOX

I respect your opinions. I will defend to the death your right to state them. But they must not be inserted on WP article talk pages, which are dedicated to sourcing and article text. Please step back from the POVmongering and engage in discussion of what RS say and how this relates to the topic and text of the article. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fact, not opinion, that many articles cited here do not qualify allegations as alleged. Humanengr (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO Re 'defend to the death': likewise re your user page 'Mind the Gap' emblem. Do you recognize that Trump is now fully supporting Wahabis? Humanengr (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this, please do not abuse other editors, either their motives or abilities. Comment on content, not on motives.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing. I am appealing. And I sympathize -- in the extreme -- with what I suspect their motives are. Humanengr (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you are abusing, you are calling people names. Frankly your behavior is disruptive and is going to get you a block (in facxt you have been given a lot more leeway then I think you deserve).

To illustrate.

I would like you to stop (that is an appeal)

You are a nasty little troll (that is abuse)

Do you see the difference?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I "calling people names"? Humanengr (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, you just use language like this [2], the implication being if I do not agree with you I am a robot (implied name calling). So no you do not actually call anyone names, just imply that those who do not aqueous to your demands are robots or complicate in fraud (and thus fraudsters). You also imply that users are Complicit in a crime [3], and thus are criminals.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven. Appreciate the feedback and understood re the implication. Would it work for you if we eliminated that exchange? I'd eliminate my para in its entirety and you likewise? If we can resolve that, maybe we can proceed to your second point. Humanengr (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered that you should apologize and strike the comments. By the way what comments do you think I should remove?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

And now we have forum shopping [4], WP:FORUMSHOP. You have now raised this matter on the articles talk page,:Identifying reliable sources ‎ and Tea house (and it's not as if you are a new user, which is what tea house really is for).Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference

Hi Humanengr. I didn't understand your last comment to me on the talk page. Did I miss the point that you were proposing? I thought I'd come here since if I did get it wrong, there's no point cluttering the talk page with us sorting it out. Let me know. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO, no problem. If you look at the top of the section, you’ll see that my proposed starting point referenced only the 1/6/2017 report. The subsequent discussion by others maintained that focus. I’m thinking we should focus on that latest written report first. Humanengr (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you proposing to put the bit about classified/unclassified evidence in the lede of the article or in a subsection on the report? SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the lede; I’m open on where else. I don’t know if Red Rock Canyon had something particular in mind in the original remark that I used as point-of-departure. Humanengr (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure what you meant by this question, so I thought I'd check before replying: [5] SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO, You said “This article is not about the report”. That seemed, to me, to indicate we were talking about different articles. Hoping you can clarify. Humanengr (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO Thx, but your explanation seems to point to a disconnect somewhere. This article follows on the 1/6/2017 ODNI report, not the 12/29/2016 FBI-DHS report. The 1/6/2017 Scott Shane article begins “The intelligence agencies’ report on the Russian intervention in the American presidential election portrays it as just one piece of an old-fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign.“ The 2nd para of the story linked there is to a 1/6/2017 NY Times story by David Sanger about the 1/6/2017 report. Humanengr (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How does this relate to the attempts to insert WP:UNDUE media comments on unclassified information into the article about the attack? SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO Are you saying that there are articles presenting an opposing viewpoint specifically on the 1/6/2017 report? Humanengr (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing what viewpoint? Mainstream sources say more or less what I paraphrased above. Fringe pundits complain that they don't have access to the classified detail so that they can do the intelligence analysis at home. That's not how it works, whether on this report or any other. In this case there's more and more corroborating evidence coming into the public domain thanks to many investigations and ongoing journalistic coverage. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO Are you saying the intelligence agencies have published more recent written reports? Humanengr (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uneasy that each explanation of mine prompts another leading question from you. As I've stated, there's an abundance of public information about the attack. The JAR is not central to the story. It's just a small step on the path. And the article is not about that report. The article would be just as informative on its subject if we left the JAR out entirely. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed." That's an assumption. It may be true, or it may not be true. All we know for sure is what's in the unclassified report.

"We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few." That's probably due to the extremely hostile editing environment in American Politics over the past year. Add in the various editors who have been blocked and the quite obvious slant in administrators' handling of editors who think everything is certain (i.e., the Russians definitely did it) and editors who think things aren't so certain, and it's not difficult to understand why more of the "Russia definitely did it" crowd are still around. Both sides have had a lot of attrition though.

"They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint": Marginal sources like the New York Times and the Süddeutsche Zeitung. One thing I've learned in interacting with SPECIFICO over the past few months is that any source that casts any doubt on the Russia story is "marginal." It doesn't matter whether it's the newspaper of record of a large country (e.g., the NY Times or the SZ).

"[...] and are quite adamant about their POV." All I'm adamant about is that Wikipedia shouldn't state things as fact that aren't certain. Looking from my vantage point, it looks like those who want to say "Russia interfered in the US elections" are adamant about their POV, and are intent on keeping out any mainstream reporting that casts any speck of doubt on their belief. It's been widely commented on that the major US intelligence documents released to the public are sorely lacking in solid evidence. There may be solid evidence behind the claims of US intel, but we, the public, don't know whether that's the case. As the NY Times article points out, the argument right now is "trust us."

"They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story." Here, your bias is shining through. We only have a few US intel reports on the alleged Russian interference. Those reports are a major element in this story, yet you're arguing for saying as little as possible about them. I think you're trying to minimize the importance of the reports because you're embarrassed about them, and you think they undermine the belief you want to convey in the article: Russia interfered in the election, end of story, it's certain. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 ::::::Opposing what viewpoint?  Mainstream sources say more or less what I paraphrased above. Fringe pundits complain that they don't have access to the classified detail so that they can do the intelligence analysis at home.  That's not how it works, whether on this report or any other. In this case there's more and more corroborating evidence coming into the public domain thanks to many investigations and ongoing journalistic coverage. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']]  02:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 :::::::@{{u|SPECIFICO}} Are you saying the intelligence agencies have published more recent written reports? [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr#top|talk]]) 02:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
+::::::::I'm uneasy that each explanation of mine prompts another leading question from you.  As I've stated, there's an abundance of public information about the attack.  The JAR is not central to the story. It's just a small step on the path. And the article is not about that report.  The article would be just as informative on its subject if we left the JAR out entirely. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']]  02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 :::{{tq|"The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed."}} That's an assumption. It may be true, or it may not be true. All we know for sure is what's in the unclassified report.