User talk:Wolfquack

YES I DID IT! Made 100th edit on Fri, Dec 9 2022 at 4:04/16:04 PM! Feel very proud of this even if it is a timidly score compared to most things. Wolfquack (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Wolfquack, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Wolfquack, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (: Wolfquack (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Wolfquack, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! Wolfquack (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Fred Zepelin. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin LOL it’s embarrassing that you can’t take basic WP advice; especially when someone like me is trying to help you. Well since this is my talk page I guess I shall say what I was trying to telling you. I wiki-linked the wrong article (a bad on my part), this is the article I was meaning to link.

Here’s the quote from the “this page in a nutshell” section in the AGF article:

“Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives.”

So yes, accusing IP’s of meat/sockpuppetry without evidence is indeed bad faith and you can get blocked for it.

Also you don’t seem to know how IP’s work. You can’t change back and forth willy-nilly with different IP’s. They don’t work like WIKI-sock accounts, where you can log in to different ones at any time. Once you change your IP you cannot go back. Wolfquack (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

How To Change Your IP Address (4 Different Ways In 2023)

How to change your IP address (6 ways, 5 are free) in 2023

A Step-By-Step Guide to Aquire a New IP Address

Embarrassing, indeed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No that’s about CHANGING your IP, not changing it to the previous one. Wolfquack (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin Like I said you CAN NOT CHANGE IT BACK, that’s the key word here. Embarrassing indeed. Wolfquack (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Now listen @Fred Zepelin, if there is an article somewhere on changing your IP back; I will decide to watch Batman and Robin in my deserved embarrassment. But until then my eyes will not be burned. Wolfquack (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)

While I am stuck waiting, at MJL and Skarmory's suggestion I have been building lists and then tables of sources for two points that have been contested on that talk page. You are welcome to look at my sandbox if it is helpful. Multiple of the sources mention the Peterson + Ballard + Caviezel interview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saikyoryu/sandbox

The other thing that is clear is the context of the interview in which the two make the defenses and promotion of QAnon conspiracy theories. It is Peterson interviewing both Ballard and Caviezel for the purpose of promoting the movie. The first line of the Apple Podcast description states "Dr. Jordan B. Peterson discusses the new film “Sound of Freedom,” with star Jim Caviezel and real life inspiration Tim Ballard" and the podcast page also directly promotes the movie. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/372-the-fight-against-worldwide-child-slavery-the/id1184022695?i=1000619149837 Saikyoryu (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright I’ll take a look at those sources. Wolfquack (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Insider source [1] that Zepelin restored says the following.

"At a 2021 event promoting the film, Caviezel claimed that traffickers were harvesting adrenaline from children, a fringe conspiracy theory associated with QAnon."

Ballard and OUR have strenuously denied having any links with QAnon. In an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters this week, Ballard said he "still" doesn't know "what QAnon is."

But in another interview this month, with alt-right figure Jordan Peterson, Ballard said that he had just raided a West African "baby factory" where children are sold for organ harvesting and "Satanic ritual abuse," echoing myths that have been pushed by the QAnon movement."

Given the undeniable context that the interview with Jordan Peterson was expressly for the purpose of promoting the movie that is clear.

Also I think I see why Fred Zepelin is getting so frustrated. Reading the whole talk page Red slapper has definitely made comments trying to claim there is no connection between the promotion of the movie and QAnon conspiracy theories. The last part feels like goalpost moving.

• [2] What are you basing this ('the promotion of the movie is tied with QAnon') on? Which source says that? Red Slapper (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• [3] Where does the BBC source say the promotion of the film is tied with QAnon? The only thing I can see there is a statement that that star (Caviezel) supports QAnon, but that's not quite the same thing.
• [4] You need a 3rd party source to say that, a wikipedia editor can't make that connection themselves. Red Slapper (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) by Red Slapper
• [5] I don't see anyone in this thread saying there's no connection between Ballard and QAnon - what are you referring to? Provide an exact quote, please. Red Slapper (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If I felt like someone was repeatedly saying one thing and then trying to move the goalposts or denying they said it I'd be frustrated too. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

also this [6] does not feel helpful to me. I wish you had read more before replying to it. It is clear that the marketing for the film is being tied to QAnon.

In press appearances promoting Sound of Freedom, Caviezel continues to spout QAnon falsehoods. On a recent episode of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's podcast, Caviezel claimed "the whole adrenochrome empire" is driving demand for trafficked children. "It's an elite drug that they've used for many years," he asserted, falsely claiming it is "10 times more potent than heroin" and "has some mystical qualities as far as making you look younger."

Executives at Angel Studios, the film's distributor, have publicly rejected any association with conspiracies. So have Tim Ballard, the former federal agent Caviezel plays in the movie, and his organization, Operation Underground Railroad. (Angel Studios declined NPR's interview request. Operation Underground Railroad did not respond to NPR's questions.)

But Ballard recently told right-wing podcadster Jordan Peterson that claimed adrenochrome harvesting is real. His statements, and Caviezel's, have an impact on how Sound of Freedom is being received, said Mike Rothschild, author of The Storm Is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything. "It's being marketed to QAnon believers, it's being embraced by this community and its leading actor is a huge part of the QAnon community," he said.

NPR Morning Edition [7] Saikyoryu (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I was taking you seriously until I saw the words:

with alt-right figure Jordan Peterson.

I’m sorry, but even on the official Jordan Peterson article (the most reliable one may I remind you) it doesn’t even call him “alt-right”. Wolfquack (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a direct quote from the source in the italics and Insider is rated as reliable for culture reporting such as film. Also after seeing your response [8] here I am not sure I can trust that you actually are taking this discussion seriously. It is most definitely not an "irrelevant interview."Saikyoryu (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"even on the official Jordan Peterson article (the most reliable one may I remind you) it doesn’t even call him “alt-right”"

Source 87 on that page:Callagahan, Greg (19 April 2018). "Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson". The Sunday Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 13 June 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.

Source 106: Bennett, Rosemary (21 March 2019). "Cambridge turns away alt-right darling Jordan Peterson". The Times. Archived from the original on 21 March 2019. Retrieved 21 March 2019.

Source 145: Farrell, Henry (10 May 2018). "The 'intellectual dark web' explained: What Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro have in common with the alt-right". Vox. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 27 November 2018.

Multiple reliable sources describe him that way. Including Insider above. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’m sorry but I’ll have to ask you to leave my talk page, your writing at the speed of sound and I don‘t even have the chance to respond (and again, the main article with a plentiful of sources doesn’t call him that). Goodbye. Wolfquack (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a lame excuse, but you already told me you're not taking me seriously so I'll take your declaration you're not assuming good faith and you don't plan to, and go on my way then. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No I’m not kidding, I was trying to reply to the above comment you made and tried to link something but then I saw the red notification mark. Wolfquack (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Listen, I’m trying to work out the entire situation in general. Both sides are whining over whether they want “filtered” or “unfiltered” and trying to looking at the sources you showed me. Wolfquack (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s difficult already when editors are getting heated over a stupid film. I never saw a film this hotly contested before since maybe one of the Star Wars sequels. Wolfquack (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You just said you're not taking me seriously. Why should I take your lame excuse seriously? I've seen a "edit conflict" notice and had to copy my text a few times too. I just got one writing this reply.

It sounds to me like you're cherry picking something minor so that you can ignore the facts in a reliable source. And it's uncivil and insulting to tell someone "I was taking you seriously until." Saikyoryu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Saikyoryu I will apologize if my wording offended you. But my point still stands that this film is being overly contested. I literally remember when the only controversy was on the accuracy section, than literally 33 sections later and an entire debate formed over a conjunction. Wolfquack (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)