User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Some questions for Trump supporters

I don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:

1. there was Russian interference in the election?
   1. that its primary goal was to destabilize America and sow division?
   2. that its secondary goal was to harm Clinton's electability?
   3. that its third goal was to help Trump win?
2. that is was Russia, and not Ukraine, that interfered in our election?
3. that the Mueller investigation did not "produce enough evidence" to prove the existence of a formal written or oral "conspiracy"/"coordination" between the Trump campaign and Russians?
4. that the Mueller investigation did prove the existence of active co-operation/collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians?
5. that there were numerous secretive meetings and contacts between the Trump family, Trump campaign members, and Russians/Russian agents?
6. that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these contacts?
7. that several have been convicted for doing so?
8. that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of conspiracy/collusion?
9. that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies to not start investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian asset (not "agent")?

What's your position on these assertions? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I supported Trump in the Canadian sense of disgust at Clinton's thinly-veiled plans to nuke Russia, but haven't cared for any American president's lying, greed or racism. Jimmy Carter's, maybe, because his was subtle. Maybe too subtle (was he even trying?) Helped clean up a nuclear disaster near a river I know once, so for that alone, he's still the only decent one since TV debates became a thing. Somewhere on Wikipedia, '15 or '16, I tried and failed to persuade American voters they didn't need to choose between two evils when Carter is still technically an official living president, merely not sitting. Same deal with Obama. You want him back, why settle for Joe Biden, the complete opposite counterbalancing VP? Makes no sense.

That said, I can confirm 1 through 6. There is absolutely nothing perfect or proper about a legit intelligence agency treating Russian election meddling with newslike urgency when agents of America's largest trading partner and country that speaks fluent English and Americanism are hiding in plain sight, planting seeds as you read this. Russia isn't in your hemisphere, much less in your charm spell radius. If any Asian deep state has the power to boost a viable signal over an ocean, it's Jerusalem. Wake up, Bullfolk!

Thank you for this opportunity to endorse Jimmy Carter, Kamala Harris and The Rock. Rome had a triumvirate, and it turned out alright, eh? And no, that wasn't an allusion to "the Fall"; Rome is currently and objectively better than Washington. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, November 9, 2019 (UTC)

Actual text of sanction

See here.

For the record and to help me and others know the exact wording of this sanction at the time it was applied, I'm placing it here:

===No personal comments===

See also: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.

If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologize/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.

Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

This is a civility-type sanction and is very good. I like it. It's good to be reminded of this type of thing, because, human nature being what it is, in the heat of the moment and when one is being attacked, it's easy to react/respond by sliding toward this type of offensive behavior, even when one has good intentions and does it to defend Wikipedia against attempts to undermine its policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Steele stuff

This might be of interest to you. Bear in mind that it was uploaded by John Solomon, so its authenticity is questionable. It's currently bouncing around the conservative echo chamber as evidence that the FBI was warned that Steele wasn't credible. (Ex: [1]) That seems very far-fetched to me. However if this document is real it might serve another purpose, to shed a little more light on the dossier allegations and how Steele arrived at them. R2 (bleep) 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This will have to be quick.... I saw that on Twitter, but the thread immediately devolved into conspiracy mongering, so I stopped reading. I know about that allegation, but it's not new, just a twist on what we already knew, AFAIK. We have always known that Steele quickly developed a strong dislike for Trump (what normal person wouldn't?); that the dossier was raw intelligence, IOW unedited and largely unverified; that it was possible that some of it was even accidentally picked up disinformation from Russian intelligence, unlike most of it where "Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give.", IOW they could have also given Don Jr. misinformation, etc. This is no secret, and both Steele and BuzzFeed made this plain from the very beginning. Is there anything really new here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at it from a different angle. It's much more interesting in how it fills out our understanding of the dossier allegations than in how it does (or rather, doesn't) support the Spygate theorists. For instance Steele explained why the pee tape allegations were credible. R2 (bleep) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. There are several interesting things about the pee tape allegation that make me tend to believe it might be true:

1. Trump has no alibi.
2. Even Schiller, his bodyguard, wouldn't give that to him.
3. He was offered the prostitutes.
4. It would be totally in character for him to consort with prostitutes.
5. It's also in character for him to have them defile that bed. He hates Obama that much as a president and as a black man. His racism is a well-documented family thing.
6. Comey is a trained professional at sniffing out BS and lying. Comey was a disbeliever until he talked to Trump. That changed him into a "maybe peeliever," and he's the expert.
7. Trump lied more than once in different ways about this.
8. He did it when lying wasn't even necessary or provoked, IOW clear consciousness of guilt.
9. There is no reason not to believe it. This is Occam's razor stuff. Belief is the more logical option.

Now we've got more about it? Wow! Will this never end? I can't wait for the movie. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm on my phone with a lousy connection and just waiting... One thing interesting about this is that Steele did not intend for the dossier, as we have it, to be published. He wasn't happy about that.

We also know that the dossier was shared with journalists and is just a small part of his finds. Look at the page numbering and you'll see there's a whole lot missing. That was probably too sensitive to share with journalists, but the FBI no doubt has it and has been researching it and maybe following leads.

This is most likely some of that "missing" stuff. Interesting! It's what's NOT in the dossier that should scare Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump Exemption Policy

See also: User talk:BullRangifer/Archive 23 § This is the %22Trump exemption%22 in practice

The "Trump Exemption Policy" (see here) describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other public person. These editors do not treat other people this way. This is super POV pushing, whitewashing, editorial behavior.

Such kid-glove treatment (reserved only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for all public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. He makes sure of that.

There should be no special exemptions for Trump, and no double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#About the request to extend full protection by one month. You are encouraged to share your thoughts at the above talkpage discussion, within the next 24 hours, before administrator El C renders his decision on whether to extend the full page protection for Sharyl Attkisson and for how long. Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Test of spacings around headings

Wikipedia's default spacings around headings are:

• One space on each side of the heading, between the colon equals sign and the heading.

== Heading ==

• A blank line above and below the heading.

Changes to these do not affect the appearance of the final product, but the default spacings make editing easier(*) for editors with older eyes, so please use the default spacings.

(*) When quickly scanning the page while in the editing window, the blank line separations jump right out and help one easily and quickly find section headings.

To prove how the default spacings work, just try to edit this section and see how it looks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Uh—colon?^{shut up, Beavis}

Hmm ... Cranio-rectal aversion?

All seriousness aside, where exactly
is "between the colon and the heading"?
--Brogo13 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL! That should be "equals sign". -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Most articles with more than a couple dozen headers == over time == == get== ==effed == ==up== anyway; horizontally, I don't see your concern. I routinely seek out such "errors" (purely in the interest of consistency), and when they are many I opt for un-spacing so Ctrl+F1 can [much more] quickly spot new ones. Brogo13 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

COI at Quackwatch?

Notice of COI/N discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. petrarchan47คุก 03:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I have replied there. This mattered as been addressed and settled several times. Two editors who pressed this issue, along with other attacks against me for my views on Quackwatch and alternative medicine, have been community banned for doing so, which is the harshest sanction here. Only the community can overturn it, so it's pretty much truly "indefinite". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Quotes should not be touched

ahem 8r' --07:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, edit summaries aren't the best way to communicate. The change I noticed that's not good is changing numbers to words. In other situations, it's normally good to improve the text by doing so where it should be done, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the way the author/speaker wrote it. (One of the unfortunate consequences is that a search for the original quote will not show that the quote is actually on the page, when it's just been changed.) That's all. Otherwise, I appreciate your improvements, so carry one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Carry one

Please look again. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

p.s. Joe and Jane public are already lost between somebody's en-dash and my hyphen. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:32, November 23, 2019‎ (UTC)

Brogo13, I'm a bit mystified by both sentences above. Especially, in light of what I've written in the previous section, and that I restored the quote to its original wording, using numbers rather than words], why have you now made the same type of change to five different quotes?

I thought we were on the same page and collaborating. Have I read you wrong? I really have a hard time figuring out what you mean in your responses. They aren't straight and simple responses, but clever whatevers. Please respond normally.

I don't want to take this to admins, but I will if we can't sort this out here. We need to agree on what to do here. Please self-revert those numbers.

When researchers search for these quotes, they will no longer find them here. That's not right. The actual wording of quotes should not be changed. If it's not a quote, then such changes would be good copyediting, but this type of thing is disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's fifty-fifty." That complete sentence deserves its own period and, read out loud, is completely indistinguishable from the numerical (indeed dashed vice hyphenated) version. Of course it wouldn't sound like Steele—or Isikoff, or Corn, who both "have stated" what Steele would have said—but we can't fix everything. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My concern is not how it "sounds", but how it appears to a page search and search engines. Even the smallest changes have huge effects. Steele did say this, and those who cited him wrote it as 50–50.

BTW, this issue is apparently already covered at MoS. Look at this discussion, which links to it:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Changes that are too radical

Now please restore the original formats to those numbers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you have done it. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yulya Alferova 2014 support for Trump

The Russians knew long before Americans.

Here is a tweet by Yulya Alferova, expressing her support for Trump's candidacy. It was from 2014. Trump had been in Moscow in November 2013:

• https://twitter.com/AlferovaYulyaE/status/426103699572678656

Here's a Twitter thread about the matter. Seth is worth following. He's an excellent investigative reporter:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/964976324749209601.html

Others have noted how the Russians knew about Trump's upcoming candidacy long before he announced it in 2015:

https://www.ajc.com/news/opinion-blogs/opinion-here-curious-thing/m14AxcrUgHZNmB6y6kA6SO/

"Note the date: Jan. 22, 2014.

"Note the source: Yulya Alferova, who describes herself as “advisor to the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.” Judging from her English-language Twitter feed, she is also a huge Trump fan.

"Finally, note the content of the tweet: In January 2014, around the time the Russians were launching their effort to meddle in the U.S. elections that were still more than two years away, Alferova already had accurate information that Trump would be running for president and had already pledged her support."

BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Also in 2014, the Russians began their hacking attack in preparation for the 2016 elections, and Dutch intelligence watched them do it, took the pictures, and made dossiers on each hacker. They watched this in real time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sale of 19.5% stake of Rosneft

An illustration of the carrot and stick principle in a 1916 Boardman Robinson anti-war cartoon.

The dossier alleged on October 18, 2016, that Sechin "offered PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for Trump lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election.

About a month after Trump won the election, according to The Guardian, Carter Page traveled to Moscow "shortly before the company announced it was selling a 19.5% stake" in Rosneft. He met with top Russian officials at Rosneft, but denied meeting Sechin. He also complained about the effects of the sanctions against Russia.

On December 7, 2016, Putin announced that a 19.5% stake in Rosneft was sold to Glencore and a Qatar fund. Public records showed the ultimate owner included "a Cayman Islands company whose beneficial owners cannot be traced", with "the main question" being "Who is the real buyer of a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft?. ... the Rosneft privatization uses a structure of shell companies owning shell companies."

Martin Longman, writing for Washington Monthly, found Steele's prediction of the privatisation of 19% of Rosneft "tantalizing" and "intriguing", and went on to write: "Either that number was floated somewhere in the press or that's a remarkable coincidence or the intelligence was good and the promise was kept."

Luke Harding has described the setting of this offer of a 19% stake in Rosneft. It involved an "unusual bribe", a "carrot", a "stick", and "blackmail". Sechin and Divyekin were allegedly using a financial bribe in a classic carrot and stick scheme. The carrot was the financial bribe: "Any brokerage fee would be substantial, in the region of tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars." It also involved a stick, the stick being blackmail of Trump: "Diveykin also delivered an ominous warning. He hinted—or even 'indicated more strongly'—that the Russian leadership had damaging material on Trump, too. Trump 'should bear this in mind' in his dealings with Moscow, Diveykin said. This was blackmail, clear and simple."

SOURCE DUMP, NOT USED

• http://bridgeproject.com/app/uploads/Trump-dossier-comparison.pdf
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rosneft-privatisation-exclusive/exclusive-russian-state-bank-secretly-financed-rosneft-sale-after-foreign-buyers-balked-idUSKCN1NE132
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/carter-pages-multimillion-dollar-dream
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/05/07/six-months-after-privatization-sale-russias-rosneft-loses-two-big-buyers/#6e7d802064b7
• https://hillreporter.com/fall-trump-power-rise-rosneft-deal-17323

Sources

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Steele page

Interesting idea. Not quite sure how to integrate this but it certainly has merit as we move to a point where the usual excuses will be trotted out again. Guy (help!) 13:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have Simpson and Fritsch's "Crime In Progress"? Very good. Guy (help!) 20:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not yet, but I will. I have read a number of interviews in which they mention it and where it is quoted. The fascinating thing about this whole dossier is that its allegations are all plausible and give explanations for events that are proven to have happened. The dossier tells what happened behind closed doors, and then events occurred which sprang from those hidden events. Also, none of the allegations have been proven to be false. There are some minor inaccuracies, such as spelling errors, but none are serious or affect the narrative or allegations. There are some allegations which will likely never be proven, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Eichenwald

ALLEGATION

• That "there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office." (Dossier, p. 14)

VERIFICATION

The dossier alleges that "there had been talk in the Kremlin of TRUMP being forced to withdraw from the presidential race altogether as a result of recent events, ostensibly on grounds of his state and unsuitability for high office." (Dossier, p. 14)

Kurt Eichenwald confirmed that this happened:

"Trump's behavior, however, has at times concerned the Russians, leading them to revise their hacking and disinformation strategy. For example, when Trump launched into an inexplicable attack on the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died in combat, the Kremlin assumed the Republican nominee was showing himself psychologically unfit to be president and would be forced by his party to withdraw from the race."

ALLEGATION

The dossier alleges that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague and met with Russian officials at Rossotrudnichestvo headquarters. While it has not been proven that Cohen did this, something similar did happen:

VERIFICATION

Kurt Eichenwald reported that something similar happened:

"Western intelligence has also obtained reports that a Trump associate met with a pro-Putin member of Russian parliament at a building in Eastern Europe maintained by Rossotrudnichestvo, an agency under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that is charged with administering language, education and support programs for civilians."

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Gubarev

His denials proven false, due to evidence found during the discovery process in the defamation suit(s) Gubarev had filed against others.

BLP violations?

JFG, thanks for the ping when you deleted my comment. Let's talk about it here. If I supplied the RS which make the case, would that solve the problem? RS describe both of them as boasters who exaggerate their own importance. Millian claims to have been present for the "golden showers" incident. Page has lied and lied until forced to tell the truth under oath, and even then he's probably not telling the full truth. They had to draw it out of him a little bit at a time. Are you in doubt about what I said, or is this purely a BLP "unsourced controversial statement" issue? If it's only the latter, then I commend you for your deletion. Otherwise, the claims can be sourced, and I'll just do it here, for your benefit, as I see no need to restore the comment on the article talk page.

The dossier alleges that Source D (Millian) claimed to have been "present" for Trump's alleged "perverted conduct in Moscow". Glenn Simpson doubts Millian's claim, and so do I. I have never seen any evidence that Millian was even with Trump at the Miss Universe pageant in 2013, and Trump's bodyguard makes no mention of Millian when he describes escorting Trump to the Presidential Suite at the Ritz-Carlton and then leaving him alone there. Nothing at all. Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. It's not entirely impossible that one of the Agalarov's (who had offered the girls to Trump) had Millian escort the girls to Trump's room later in the night, but I highly doubt it.

The existing video shows two girls on the bed, one laying down and the other peeing while she's standing, and they are not peeing on Trump. He appears to be pointing and directing them what to do, while also poking at his cell phone, both gestures we have seen many times. The room matches the Presidential Suite exactly. If it's a fake, it's very well done. What's rather amusing about this is that no one on earth, not even Melania, can honestly deny that this isn't something he would do. It's entirely in character, and he lied several times about it. Why lie about it if you're innocent?

Sergei Millian (Siarhei Kukuts) is a Belarusian-born American citizen, with close ties to the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, has been identified as both sources D and E, unwitting (and thus a hostile witness) sources mentioned in the Trump–Russia dossier. He never intended his confidential discussions to be repeated to Steele, but that's what happened. ABC News reported that a version of the dossier "provided to the FBI included Millian's name as a source".

Here is just one of the sources which describe some of Millian's claims (outside the dossier) as boasting.

Here's one for Carter Page.

Court testimony shows Page had been lying when he repeatedly denied meeting Russian officials during his 2016 visit to Moscow and Rosneft. While it is still unproven that he actually met with Sechin at that time (he has met him at other times), he did admit to meeting with Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft. That makes sense because the allegations are about matters which would be in Baranov's area of responsibility. Page was "compelled to admit" that fact, and we know that hostile witnesses only admit the truth in little bits, and often never reveal the full truth.

Some RS consider his admissions as confirmation about the general veracity of the dossier's allegation, even if a name is wrong. The main facts are that (1) such meetings actually did happen, and (2) he had repeatedly lied about it.

The same principle applies to the dossier's allegation that there existed a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." While the "conspiracy" was never proven, the actual "co-operation" was proven with boatloads of evidence.

So it was unproven that a "formal agreement" existed, but what is alleged to have actually happened really did happen, and that is really the most important thing. Trump supporters stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient.

Page is alleged to have met at least two different people at Rosneft in two different meetings. Only one meeting has been dealt with (Baranov). The other meeting is ignored, and it's this one where he allegedly met Sechin. There are a lot of unproven things going on, and we may never get the full truth. He is an untrustworthy hostile witness whose statements to the IG cannot be taken at face value. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive notes. I never knew about the fake pee tape, although I'm sure dozens of porn sites may have enacted this exact scenario for fun and clicks, once the Steele dossier made it a popular fantasy. I confirm that my removal of your paragraph in brackets was only meant as enforcement of BLP rules on talk pages. I have no opinion on the credibility of Page and Millian (although Millian does appear at first glance as a lot shadier than Page). As you noted, many updates to our articles will probably be necessary once RS start digesting the Horowitz report. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 18:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

JFG, the video is short and obviously from someone taking a picture of the screen on which it is being played, so the quality is diminished. Too bad we don't have the original! Others have done this, but I too have compared the room, bed, and lighting with the actual room and its walls, and the match is perfect. If it's a fake, it was still made in the real room. That this happened has been a rumor in Moscow for several years, long before the dossier. Sometimes they joke about it on television. We just don't know if the rumor is true.

Millian has lots of connections in the Kremlin, within the Trump campaign, and within the Trump Organization, and been photographed with many, including Trump and Deripaska. He has an insider's POV from both aspects. He uses them and they use him, but that also makes him a throwaway person. His acquaintances feel no loyalty to him. He's a boaster and self-promoter, which lessens his credibility, maybe not for the actual events, but at least for his relationship to them.

Page is a slippery guy who uses what I call "mob speak", much like Trump. (If Trump didn't learn it from his father, he probably learned it from Roy Cohn and the mobsters he used to hang around with.) It's hard to pin them down. Page's statements are vague, unfocused, jump around a lot, and he mentions a whole lot of things within a few seconds. In the end, there are dozens of ways he can later use modifiers and "not sure", "I don't remember", "maybe that's right, now that you remind me of it" to get out of taking responsibility for anything he said. Only a court situation, under oath, with lawyers persistently pressuring him, gets him to divulge a little bit more at a time. His type wastes the time of the courts. Plausible deniability is a modus operandi with these types. It's their habitual way of speaking and acting, and that's a huge "consciousness of guilt" red flag. Honest people don't speak that way. People who have something to hide do it all the time.

Trump's lawyers have described how he does this all the time. He rarely gives actual orders, but all his associates know that when he expresses a wish, they are to understand it as marching orders, and if they succeed without getting caught, he'll reward them, but if they get caught, or they tell the truth and expose him, he'll throw them under the bus while he keeps his hands clean. I just don't like these types of people. They have no regard for truth. Give me an imperfect person who makes mistakes any day. They are fundamentally honest. Even those who strongly disagree with Obama's policies recognize him as a man of class, honor, and decency. He is still highly respected around the world. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

"NPOV is inviolable"

I'm aware of the sentence in the policy, but what matters is application in practice. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and when there is a disagreement between policy and widespread practice it's the policy that should change.

Can you point to one or two cases where a minority position has prevailed because it cited that sentence? If not, you should (1) take the question to the community for clarification, or (2) assume that the community does not interpret and apply the sentence the way you do and abandon that line of argument.

My view on the issue is that anybody can raise a false NPOV flag, and they often do as you're well aware. Your interpretation of the policy would leave articles defenseless against that. Consensus is what decides how much merit an NPOV claim has, so it's nonsensical to claim that NPOV trumps consensus. The only policy that can trump consensus is BLP, and only because that's necessary to protect the project from costly lawsuits that could kill it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, I pretty much agree with everything you say above. All our policies are interpretable, and that's where consensus rules. My specific point is that the personal feelings and POV of editors should not trump RS.

NPOV applies mostly to editorial neutrality in how we present sources, including biased sources, not so much to content or source neutrality, since both may be biased, and editors must reign in their feelings and POV and prioritize RS. Editors must not show bias in their editing. They must let RS-coverage dictate how much weight to give a subject, and they must not get in the way. They must faithfully document the POV found in the sources.

I have expounded on this in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Feelings and POV are subjective, and it's an NPOV policy violation to give such feelings priority over RS, or, as I wrote "RS-coverage, not subjective editorial POV, weighs more." That's my point. Does that make sense to you, or am I expressing myself too poorly? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Here you said, NPOV is inviolable, and a local consensus must not override it. Above you said, the personal feelings and POV of editors should not trump RS. Those are very different statements and I don't see how the former can be interpreted as the latter. Thanks for clarifying and here's hoping you can be clearer the first time in future comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh! That is a bit muddled, but are speaking about different things (NPOV policy and RS). Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes different contexts explain different wordings and seemingly conflicting statements, and other times I simply screw up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Google Trends

Hey in response to this I thought I would reply on your talk page instead of the article talk. I have not used it very often but for example here it is comparing just the search term. When you click on the term at the top a drop down should appear and you can select search term or topic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That did seem to work better. Thanks so much! - -BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Co-operation" was proven

Terminology is important. There are two aspects to the allegation of a '"well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". Don't stop at "conspiracy", just because it wasn't proven. The next word "co-operation" is even more important, because that describes what actually is proven to have happened.

Mueller did not prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but the Mueller Report documents boatloads of proven co-operation/collusion. There is mountains of evidence for that. See this exposition on two of the terms: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination.

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2

Note those words: "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."

Why did Mueller point that out? Because the "two parties [did indeed take] actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." That's textbook co-operation/collusion.

See this from: Mueller Report#Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter:

The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:

• Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.

The main fact is that co-operation/collusion actually did happen. Trump welcomed that Russian help and facilitated it.

How do Trump supporters react to that? They stop with the unproven and refuse to admit the proven. How convenient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an absurd position to hold because they would never do this in real life for anything else. Here's an equivalent situation:

Two men are arrested for beating, shooting, and robbing another man, and after hiding the loot they burned his house to the ground. He barely survives, is forced into retirement because of the injuries that will plague him the rest of his life, and is left destitute, as his belongings have not been recovered. He now lives in a homeless shelter. His life is completely altered, with a bleak future.

At the trial, the two men are accused of planning the attack, as one man brought the gun and the other man brought the bullets. They are charged with conspiracy to commit a crime and also charged with battery, robbery, and arson.

The defense counters that there is no proof the men planned the attack as no formal written or oral agreement to commit the crime has been found.

The final verdict acquits the men of the charge of conspiracy, but convicts them of the other crimes, with lots of evidence.

The friends and family of the two criminals now rejoice and loudly proclaim their two friends are innocent as no conspiracy was proven. They don't talk about the crimes committed or the now destitute and injured man.

THAT is the current position of Trump supporters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Moving my comments

Hopeless. Communication with normal people usually works, but this is really weird, fruitless and been a huge waste of time. Not normal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not the first time you have moved my comments, and both times it seems to be completely unnecessary. Are you trying to get us into some intractable dispute over something that would require involvement from other parties, in an attempt to get me banned from interacting with you? I will always treat you and others respectfully, so I very much doubt that will happen, but I ask you not to move my comments again. My comments at 04:27 and 04:36 are clearly made before yours at 06:13, but for some reason you have decided to move mine down and place your comment above mine, and doing so again when I reverted that move. You also added an indent to my comment, which makes it look like I am replying to your comment, and that is simply not the case. The only times I have had issues with another editor moving my comments (after I move them back) was with you, so I hope this is not behaviour you are undertaking with other editors. It has absolutely no bearing on the content of the article, so I can't see why you're doing this. There are other contributors with similar views on content as yourself, but they have not been engaging in this kind of conduct. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Onetwothreeip, go back and look at the diffs more carefully. You are the one who has moved my comment three times. Please stop it. Here are the diffs. Notice the original location of my comment: 06:06, December 14, 2019‎ My edit added an RfC heading without moving any comments. An RfC MUST start in its own separate section. 06:13, December 14, 2019‎ My edit added my new comment above that RfC section, right after the comment time stamped 01:39. Notice that location. 06:25, December 14, 2019‎ Here you remove the RfC heading, claiming I had moved your comment, but no comments had been moved, so that was an odd edit summary. 06:31, December 14, 2019‎ Here, without any edit summary, you move my comment away from its original location to a location down below your later comment. You also add a comment of your own below mine in that same edit. 15:33, December 14, 2019 I moved my comment back to its original location. Note the time stamp of the comment immediately above mine. I also add a new comment in that same edit. 23:10, December 14, 2019‎ You remove a heading, while claiming your comment had been moved. It hadn't. No comment had been moved. 23:11, December 14, 2019‎ Once again, without any edit summary, you move my comment lower. 06:38, December 15, 2019‎ Once again, I restore my comment to its original location. Notice the time stamp of the comment immediately above mine. Note that it may appear I was moving yours, but I was actually moving mine, but because they switch places, the appearance can be tricky. The point is, I put my comment back in its original location. 07:09, December 15, 2019‎ For the third time, you move my comment again away from its original location. BTW, someone else added the indent to your comment as part of normal, good faith, WP:REFACTORing. PLEASE SELF-REVERT. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC) My edit added an RfC heading without moving any comments. An RfC MUST start in its own separate section. When you made this edit, you moved my comments into that new section. If I wanted my comment to be in a new section, I would have made a new section. The "original location" of your comment that you are referring to was placed there by moving my other comments further down. This is the last revision before you first moved my comment and added your own (when you created a new section). I made the 04:27 comment as a response to my initial comment at the start of the section, immediately after a comment by My very best wishes. Then I added an RfC template and another comment after that, at 04:36. These comments came one after another, without any of your comments being made in between them. If you want to add your own comment, you are free to do so, but put them after mine. You have no right (or reason, for that matter) to move my comments down so that you can add yours higher up. The appropriate place to add your comment is either at the end of the thread, or below another editor's comment. If you choose to place them below another editor's comment, they should be below all the other responses to that comment. Again I ask you, why are you even doing this? There simply seems to be no benefit for you here, and no change in article content as a result. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Look, this is a confusing situation, and there is no bad faith attempt to disrupt things. As I see it, the problem started when you improperly started an RfC in the middle of an existing discussion. I have never seen that done before. That's not how it's done. If you had started a separate RfC section, there would be no problem. I did not want to participate in your RfC, and added my comment in response to right after the comment at "My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019". You kept moving my comment away from that spot, which makes it appear that I was responding to you. I was not, so my comment should not appear right after yours. Unfortunately, others then responded to my comment while it was in the wrong place. The way to solve this is for you to restart your RfC in its own section so it's clear who is responding to what. The section heading of an RfC is required to include the letters RfC and a short, neutral, description. That makes it an official RfC which the bots can handle properly. My comment does not belong in the RfC or after your comment. If you won't start the RfC properly in its own section, I will strike my comment and repeat it in the right place above the RfC. Your comment which starts with these words "It's clear this will only get the same participants that..." appears to belong to the RfC, and can be added underneath the new RfC section heading, or you can just leave it immediately above, but that too can create confusion. Just don't force me or others to participate in your improperly formed RfC. Ideally, you should just delete that comment and make a clean start for the RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC) I just went ahead and struck my comment and then restored it to its original location. Don't move it again. It is not part of your RfC and is not in response to your RfC comments, but it is a response to your opening comment at 21:44, 13 December 2019. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Since you "also made my 06:31 comment as a reply to BullRangifer 06:13, not to my own comment.", feel free to keep them together by moving your comment (and mine that follows) up under mine. That will help a lot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC) Onetwothreeip, to properly start an RfC, just follow the instructions here: Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC) I obviously didn't appreciate your attempts to alter the RfC, and this all could have been avoided if you had raised your concerns with me before you took your actions. I am more than willing to discuss these kinds of issues on my talk page, as you have done so on my talk page previousy. I am aware that RfCs are typically started at the beginning of a section, as I have done in the past myself, and I purposefully did not do so here. If your comment at 06:13 was intended to be a reply to the comment by My very best wishes at 01:39, I have absolutely no problem with your comment being moved below the 01:39 comment as a reply, as long as it was indented to be a reply. It was originally posted as a reply to the first comment in the section, my comment at 21:44. I have no interest in keeping your comment below the RfC template rather than above it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC) I didn't try to "alter" the RfC, only give it the heading it should have. An RfC is a formal procedure with rules. One should not deviate from them. That causes problems, as in this case. My comment was located right below 01:39, and was one of several replies to your opening comment at 21:44. The location is now correct, and I have fixed the indents. Thanks for moving your comment up under mine, because you did intend to reply to me. I think things are pretty good now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC) No, I did not intend to reply to you. How you can claim that to be a response to you when you only made your comment afterwards is completely ridiculous. I moved your comment above mine because you said you intended that to be a response to the comment My very best wishes. I moved it back there on the condition that it would be properly indented to show it was a response to that comment. Giving a separate heading for the RfC is clearly altering my comment. I wouldn't encourage that sort of action, but given that I could easily revert that, it's not too much of a problem. The comment where I open the RfC was a response to my own initial comment that opened the section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Here is the original location of my comment, with the original indentation. That is where I want it to stay. I can see that I wrote two conflicting things which are confusing. The first is wrong and the second correct: "added my comment in response to the comment at "My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019"." I have now stricken the incorrect part to avoid confusion. Now it reads like what I really meant. "but it is a response to your opening comment at 21:44, 13 December 2019." That is correct, and also why it only had one bullet. Here you moved my comment and added a reply to it. Your comment "No, I did not intend to reply to you." appears to be incorrect. I hope that clears up any lingering confusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC) I think I can clear this up pretty easily. These two edits moved my comments down. Whether this was accidental or not, this obviously should not have happened, unless you meant to respond to the above comment by My very best wishes. I've had to move my comment back up above that, in its original place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Onetwothreeip, OMG! Seriously? You just moved a FIVE COMMENT THREAD down into your RfC, when they never were intended to be part of it. This whole mess could have been avoided if you had started your RfC in the proper manner, a manner you were aware of ("I am aware that RfCs are typically started at the beginning of a section, as I have done in the past myself, and I purposefully did not do so here."). Don't deviate from standard practice. It creates clusterfucks like this. Things were finally back where they should be, and yet you've again moved my comment (and responses to it) away from where it was originally located right after the comment time-stamped 01:39, 14 December 2019. Notice that location. You should have discussed this move here before you did it. Your diff of supposedly "two edits" only shows one edit, which is my original addition of that comment at 06:13, December 14, 2019‎, right after the comment time stamped 01:39, 14 December 2019. As I just explained above, my comment was in response to your opening comment at 21:44, 13 December 2019. Leave it there. You later moved my comment and responded to it at 06:31, 14 December 2019. That's why your response to my comment (06:31, 14 December 2019), and then my response to your comment, all belong right after my 06:13, 14 December 2019 comment. Keep them together and all will be well. Now you have placed your two comments (04:36, 14 December 2019 and 04:27, 14 December 2019) above a FIVE COMMENT THREAD, even though your two comments were originally placed below. Don't look at the time they were written, as that will confuse you. Even though my comment (06:13, 14 December 2019) was written (timewise) after your two comments, it was not originally placed after them because my comment was never intended as part of your RfC or in response to your two comments. Now it appears as if it is part of your RfC, but it's not. It was intended as a response to your opening comment time-stamped 21:44, 13 December 2019. The comments above your RfC are not part of it. To make sure there is no confusion, I want you to fix this. Please self-revert your edit and place that FIVE COMMENT THREAD back up above your RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) This is simply getting absurd at this point. You moved my comment, it wasn't me moving your comment. As you can see with this edit, I posted these comments immediately after the comment made by My very best wishes. If you want to reply to My very best wishes, of course you can do this, but otherwise you would simply have to make a comment below my comment, or not make a comment at all. If you want to comment below my comment but you want to make it clear you don't want it to be considered part of an RfC, of course you can amend your comment to reflect that. Instead what you did, as seen through these successive edits, was you moved my comment without my permission, into a new section and placed your comment above mine'. I assumed good faith and reverted your moving of my comments. Then I moved my comments back up and responded to your comment. It is not my fault that other responses have been added to that particular comment chain, so the amount of comments in that chain is completely immaterial. Describing it in CAPITAL LETTERS is pretty pointless here. When you claim that you should have discussed this move here before you did it, you should remember that it was you who moved my comment down in order to place yours above mine. I never agreed to my comments being moved down. Every time that I have made an edit in regards to this, it has been by cutting and pasting my comments back to where I originally placed them. I purposefully placed those comments immediately after the comment by My very best wishes, and it is not for you to interpret where I wanted to put those comments when I have explicitly stated where I intended for them to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Well, I can see that you would rather relitigate this from the start, rather than going back to the last place we were in agreement. I'm really beginning to wonder if you might have Asperger syndrome, like my son. That's not an insult, just a recognition that it would explain your untraditional way of dealing with this and with your uncollaborative, solo, editing patterns. I can AGF about that. Otherwise, you're just being uncollaborative and disruptive, and there's no AGF for that. It would also explain why you don't react normally to all the complaints about your behavior. Normal people try to mesh in and edit collaboratively, but you push on like a bull in a china shop. It looks like I'll have to find some other way to resolve this so that it doesn't appear that those comments were part of your RfC. Several of those comments were added while my comment was in its original location above your RfC, and now they all appear to be part of it. That's not right. Again, this would never have been an issue if you had just created the RfC in the required manner as a separate section. Don't deviate from normal procedures here. It creates these types of problems and lots of wasted time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC) My sandbox. No cats allowed This is the state of things (after I had written my 06:13, 14 December comment above the RfC) at this edit by IP123, but the response by IP123 at 06:31, 14 December was added after they had moved my comment down into the RfC, where it did not belong. Yet it was clearly a response to my comment: It's clear this will only get the same participants that are always here, so the only real way to settle this is through an RfC and reach editors who are not personally invested in the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC) {{rfc|pol|rfcid=B4CFEC8}} Should events from the 1980s and 90s be included in this timeline article about the 2016 United States elections? There are also further questions over the relevancy of many of the entries in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Keep. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Sometimes they have a start date (the Russian hacking toward the 2016 election already began in 2014, according to Dutch intelligence), but they also have a prehistory, and that is legitimate content, especially since RS make these connections. From 1987 and onwards, the KGB, and later Russian FSB (and Russian oligarchs, businessmen, and mobsters), have watched and cultivated Trump. At first as a wealthy American with outspoken anti-American views, and then as one who already had presidential aspirations, and in 2013 they publicly expressed their support for his coming candidacy, long before he told Americans. They promised him their support. In the end, it's RS that dictate what we do here. This content is relevant if RS say it's relevant, and they do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC) What happened in 1987 was not Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC) These three comments were added later No one claims it was. It is the prehistory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Diff. Added below RfC The 1980s are in the Mueller Report "prehistory", and the 1980s are in other RSs whether it be via the Internet, books, or books on the Internet (Google Books). X1\ (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Diff. Added above RfC NOTE: Comments above are not part of the following RfC. It was added later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Diff. Added above RfC This is the state of things after IP123 moved the thread down below the RfC, making it appear they were all part of the RfC. They were not. {{rfc|pol|rfcid=B4CFEC8}} Should events from the 1980s and 90s be included in this timeline article about the 2016 United States elections? There are also further questions over the relevancy of many of the entries in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC) It's clear this will only get the same participants that are always here, so the only real way to settle this is through an RfC and reach editors who are not personally invested in the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Keep. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Sometimes they have a start date (the Russian hacking toward the 2016 election already began in 2014, according to Dutch intelligence), but they also have a prehistory, and that is legitimate content, especially since RS make these connections. From 1987 and onwards, the KGB, and later Russian FSB (and Russian oligarchs, businessmen, and mobsters), have watched and cultivated Trump. At first as a wealthy American with outspoken anti-American views, and then as one who already had presidential aspirations, and in 2013 they publicly expressed their support for his coming candidacy, long before he told Americans. They promised him their support. In the end, it's RS that dictate what we do here. This content is relevant if RS say it's relevant, and they do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC) What happened in 1987 was not Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC) No one claims it was. It is the prehistory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC) The 1980s are in the Mueller Report "prehistory", and the 1980s are in other RSs whether it be via the Internet, books, or books on the Internet (Google Books). X1\ (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC) NOTE: Comments above are not part of the following RfC. It was added later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fourteen years of editing!

Hey, BullRangifer. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thanks. How time flies. After editing on a casual basis as an IP since 2003, I finally got serious and registered an account on December 18, 2015. It's been quite a ride, and an enriching one. One learns so much from this adventure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian state media called Trump their "Agent"

• Russia’s State TV Calls Trump Their ‘Agent’; Russian commentators note, rightly, that “sooner or later, the Democrats will come back into power," and they’re already joking about offering Trump asylum. Updated Dec. 17, 2019

X1\ (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read that one. While much of it is sarcastic, it's also very telling. The Russians regularly joke about themselves electing the American president. They don't keep it a secret. Trump doesn't want to admit what happened, but they brag about it. He asked for their help and he got it. Of course, they had already expressed in 2013 that they would support his candidacy, and in 2014 the hacking already began. Fortunately Dutch intelligence had hacked the Russians and literally watched, in real time, as they hacked America. They even hacked the surveillance cameras and were able to get pictures of all the hackers, got their names, their computers IDs, everything. The Russians and Trump planned this for a long time. When he asked for their help, he already knew that they had stolen Hillary's emails and been hacking to help him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well BR. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip

I previously said this in Corker1's user talk, but I'll say it here as well: I feel strongly that this user needs to be reported for his pattern of creating problems, most recently on the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War article, where he's just turned approximately half of the article's references into citation errors. Even if I assume good faith about his editing, which is quite difficult in some cases, this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Competence is required. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. I didn't turn references into errors, I simply moved content into another article. Because they are list defined references, it shows up as an error because the references aren't invoked in the article itself. All that needs to be done is for the errors to be removed. This is really not worth causing so much fuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that error doesn't affect the actual article body, so the complaint is overblown. Somebody needs to remove the unused LDRs, assuming they are going to remain unused, since those big red errors in the refs section shouldn't be left for long. Failure to do so immediately hardly amounts to CIR. In related news, years ago I tried to get a Village Pump consensus to modify the software to tolerate that "error", or at least report it less intrusively, since that would be one less reason to avoid using LDR. Couldn't get any traction. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You stated above: "All that needs to be done is for the errors to be removed. This is really not worth causing so much fuss." I therefore wish to advise you that you can save yourself and other editors a lot of time, trouble and "fuss" if you remove the errors yourself. Corker1 (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been making it a much bigger deal than it has to be, across several pages. Please direct further comments to my talk page, but I don't think you need to comment any further anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• IP-editor, I have a tangentially-related question. Since you don't have an account, it's hard to tell who we're talking to sometimes. You said you'd been editing here a year - was this your first edit on the page in question? Or roughly your first edit, anyway? --Aquillion (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Aquillion. I can't answer that question for 123IP, but I can tell you that this was their IP before they registered the current account: 123.2.85.195 -- BullRangifer (talk 01:31, December 23, 2019‎ (UTC)

They're referring to 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868, not me. I made this account years ago after using a shared IP address to edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Apologizes for bringing this up on your talk page, but talking to a dynamic IP is hard because there's no reason to think things left on the IP's talk page will ever reach them if it changes before the next time they log in. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: No, that comment was made by someone else. Look at where that IP is located; I don't live in Philadelphia.

I began editing Wikipedia in late winter or early spring of this year. I mostly edited articles about living people at first, for the reason I explained here. Several of my colleagues were discussing how intelligence researchers were being harmed in real life by Grayfell's edits to their Wikipedia articles. In particular, the student protesters who caused Gerhard Meisenberg to lose his job were citing the material that Grayfell had added to the Gerhard Meisenberg article.

You've recently restored some of the same material on that article, so this is quite important to mention. I suggest you read my statement here, "statement by IP editor", in which I described the history of the material you've restored. Six different users have previously removed this material as a violation of BLP policy, and Grayfell restored it in each case, restoring it a total of nine times. On two of these occasions, this material resulted in the article being tagged as an attack page, and the material was removed by admins as a policy requirement in response to the tag; in both cases Grayfell subsequently reverted the article back to the version that had been tagged as an attack page. When you restored the material with the justification that you don't see a consensus to remove it, had you been aware of this history? 2600:1004:B109:9916:C960:19A3:D329:3BFE (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

While I do Second That Emotion in regards to that particular issue...

Hi BullRangifer. In this post on teh dramaboard you linked a YouTube video that was most likely uploaded without without permission from its copyright holders. Please see the blah, blah, blah. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, I know not to use unreliable sources in articles, and then there's something about not linking to websites which mostly host copyrighted material, which usually results in the link being removed, not revdeleted. I have now fixed it. Thanks for the alert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

AE

There is a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BullRangifer|Arbitration Enforcement]--Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)