User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x

Welcome!

Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a new editor

Hello. I am User:Steve Quinn. I know you are not a new editor but I wanted to leave a message on your talk page. I thought welcoming you first would be best, even though you were probably welcomed awhile ago. The message I wish to leave is as follows and for your benefit. Everyone on the Seth Rich talk page gets one (including me):

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 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:Z33Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Telegraph

Is it my imagination, or is Macon edit warring to include the tabloid reference, violating ARBAP2 and 1RR? SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: -- In a manner of speaking he did. But the reliable sources noticeboard has proved him correct on this one.Steve Quinn (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: He's put it back in three times now within a period of 24 hours 42 minutes, after it was removed by three different editors. For now, I've edited my "analysis" of Mr. Allen's piece of manure a little and added it to the discussion Herostratus started on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll see what happens; I can't believe that the other editors have read the same article. I suspect/hope they've been discussing The Telegraph in general terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Your post here arrived while I was busy on the noticeboard thing. Please, read my comments there. I still think the question shouldn't have been whether the Telegraph is a reliable source, but whether the article/author is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Thanks. I will go over to the RSN ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on Arbcom Enforcement and RSN. The anti-Hillary comrades are experienced and devoted wikilawyers and with the Admins unwilling to cut to the core of their behavior, they will easily succeed in keeping all kinds of nonsense on WP until election day. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions

Page is now under restrictions per Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Active_arbitration_remedies.

Though it is interesting sourced info, suggest you self-revert this edit here, and instead bring to talk page to discuss. Sagecandor (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I moved it to the "Commentary and Reactions - Former CIA Officers Section" before I saw your post. I'll remove it and take it to the Talk section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Was this an accidental mistake edit ? Sagecandor (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I have no idea what happened there. Most of that doesn't look like my edit. I tried to move your suggestion to the Talk page behind BobK's answer and then just added "done". Maybe something got mixed up with another editor saving something at the same time? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Sagecandor (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing. Still don't know what happened. I did post another text around the time (I just put it in the Craig Murray section); don't see how I could have accidentally deleted an unconnected bunch of other editor's posts, but I guess I did unless Wikipedia has added pixies as editing feature. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich ?

Hello. Did you intend to be launching a formal RfC at Seth Rich talk? If so, I believe that you need to state a simple clear proposition, such as should your edit replace the previous text. I'm not sure whether this is needed, especially since no editor has yet disagreed with your edit, which seems to have obvious merit. Also if you wish this to be an RfC, there should be a separate "threaded discussion" section beneath the yes/no section of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:No, just making a good-faith edit, removing errors, i.e., reward amounts, and adding half-sentence on verifiability of WL offer, according to source. I believe the RfC on whether to mention Burkman or not hasn't been closed, so I didn't mention him by name. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi the reason I ask is that the RfC template appears to have been placed above your recent message there. If that wasn't what you intended, perhaps it shouldn't have appeared. I'm not sure what makes that template show on a talk page. Just my observation. Up to you. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Thanks. Learning by doing, AKA copying and pasting:). Removed the template, didn't quite manage to correct the "reference in a box". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsigned Comment

Hello. It appears that you forgot to sign the following comment at Russian Interferences...

[1]

SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Mea culpa. Thanks, added it now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambert C. Mims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uriah. 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) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies

For the edit summary here. I realized that it was simple mistake, but that simple mistake completely flipped the meaning of the sentence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but it wasn’t really necessary; I jumbled the sentence. I was surprised, is all, to be mistaken for someone who would misrepresent sources to whitewash the actions of a Trump minion. That was a first! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

American Civil War interest

Hey,

reacting to your comment on Talk:German Americans in the American Civil War. You know that there is an American Civil War taskforce on the Military History project, right? Also, if you´re interested in learning and discussing about the civil war with likeminded people outside of wiki I can only recommend to take a look or join us at Civil War Talk. Regards ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 I voted!  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Klanbake

Your redirect of Klanbake to the internet meme article was inappropriate because that page does not mention the term. I've redirected it to the specific section about the meme in the Democratic convention article, so readers will go straight to the debunking of the term instead of having to hunt around for it. I agree the plain redirect to the convention page was wrong. Fences&Windows 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thanks. I just wanted to get rid of that redirect fast and couldn't think of anything better to do short of deleting the redirect altogether and copying the paragraph from the convention article which would also have been inappropriate. Is this what you did: #REDIRECT 1924 Democratic National Convention#"Klanbake" meme (for future reference)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. That's a new section created after the Washington Post article. Fences&Windows 17:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Erickson

Since you edited Paul Erickson a bit, perhaps you'd be willing to weigh in on the pending disputes at Talk:Paul Erickson? We could use your input. Thanks in advance. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Just leaving a note as you edit in the area, and the last alert you received was in 2016. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

You just restored a challenged edit here here. Specifically the removal of this "Trump's racially insensitive statements[270] have been condemned by many observers in the U.S. and around the world,". You also didn't leave an edit summary. I request that you restore this material until there is consensus to remove it, per the page editing restrictions.- MrX 🖋 14:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX I was actually partially undoing JFG's edit (and improving the structure while I was at it). Didn't notice that you had challenged his changes between the time I started writing and saved. I self-reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I though it may have been an edit conflict. I had no problem with the rest of your edit and I'm happy to explain why I restored the portion quoted above. Thanks for self reverting.- MrX 🖋 15:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For my information, was this a case of a "copy edit" in which the meaning of the article text was changed without acknowledging this in the edit summary? I see a lot of this kind of editing and it's very confusing and results in lots of new article text insinuated in ways that are difficult to parse and difficult for editors to discuss and adjust after they're discovered. Did that happen in this case? SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Space4Time3Continuum2x was also challenging JFG's edit, but in a slightly different way. I'm guessing they started editing before I completed my edit which made it look like my edit was reverted.- MrX 🖋 15:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to restore the former content by combining two sentences and reinserting the deleted reference and simultaneously restructuring slightly, move Trump closer to his supporters, so to speak. And trying to keep track of everything in Wikipedia editor. Bad idea. Sorry about the confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC) And then I simply forgot the edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that this kind of confusion or duplication of efforts, or actually one might say completely unnecessary repair job, is dues to insinuation of POV language under the guise of copy edits or minor edits that are routinely overlooked by experienced editors and tend to proliferate if not vigilantly checked and repaired. I think @Galobtter: just corrected another similar one in the lead section. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in my case it was due to suspecting insinuation of POV language, not wanting to get into another lengthy argument, prolonged wrangling of Wiki text, forgetting the edit summary (I haven't found a way to add or correct it after hitting "send"), and forgetting to check whether other editors had made edits in the meantime. Keeping the faith! The POV will be weeded out eventually, the sockpuppets unmasked, and we'll all live happily ever after or until the next time, whichever comes first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not saying that you cloaked your change of meaning. I was trying to avoid naming any other editor since I didn't know the full sequence of edits. I've raised a similar concern recently on the Trump article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I got that:) I didn't want to name any names either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rodman

Hello. You have violated the 1RR restriction with these two reverts.
Further, you violated the requirement for talk page consensus for challenged edits with this revert. The image has been in the article for months and its removal was challenged, therefore talk page consensus is required to remove it.
As I see it you need to do two self-reverts. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Rodman - When and where was the removal of the picture challenged? There was a brief discussion before the removal, ending with So remove the image of Rodman. As for leader of the free world, seems odd for a president who's motto is "America First". O3000 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC), the picture was removed, and two days later an editor reinserted it. Shouldn't that editor have discussed the reinsertion? As for the other two, I didn't regard changing the size of an image as a revert. I'll revert that for now and wait for your response on Rodman. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of O3000's comment, but one comment does not constitute a consensus. For the purposes of the ArbCom restrictions, that comment and the other editor's failure to discuss can be ignored (the other editor also was very likely unaware of the comment).
As for the image size, a reversal of any fairly recent edit is a revert as I understand the term—it certainly is not limited to prose or matters that people might deem "substantive". Experience tells us it would be a very bad idea to start blurring that line, as the cost would exceed the benefit as editors tailored their definitions of "substantive" to suit their immediate objectives. That revert was clearer than many, since it wasn't a "partial" or "sort of" reversal—it reversed all of the edit and did nothing more—and the time interval was well outside the gray area. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have self-reverted the removal of the Rodman picture but you haven't answered my question about when and where its original removal was challenged. I still think the original removal was the challenge, and B dash was in violation of 1RR when he/she reverted it without discussion. The challenged removal of long-standing content had nothing to do with the picture, it was about text. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think the original removal was the challenge - I think you're confusing content with edit. The ArbCom restriction is about challenged edits, not challenged content. Once content has been in the article for a certain amount of time (admin NeilN has suggested 4–6 weeks, IIRC, and that image has been in the article for longer than that), its removal is not a challenge-by-reversion but simply a BOLD edit.
I'm starting the discussion to seek consensus to remove; please participate there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, NeilN I stand corrected. Thanks for letting me self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For future reference...

Your comments, here and here, inspired me into doing a bit of research as to why using time/date stamps on a busy TP doesn't work as well as providing the actual diffs, so I asked the experts and thought it might prove helpful to share it with you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

atsme I haven't spent much time looking under Wikipedia's hood, and I'm used to working with UTC. I assumed that everybody was using and seeing UTC, or I would have copied & pasted UTC in parentheses along with the time & date. What does the system show between the parentheses when you're using local time, CDT? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It shows (UTC-5) which is CDT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump family separation RfC

This has now been closed, and as far as I can tell your proposed language was the best most recent version and should be placed in the article. Seems like you would be best equipped to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Thanks for the vote of confidence :). There hasn't been any reaction to my last proposal (version D, substituting "improper entry" for "unlawfully crossing") so I don't feel all that anointed. When I have more time than right now, I'll try to come up with a version without the "factual inaccuracies" Neutrality pointed out. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts

Continued from Talk:Donald Trump#Treatment of facts, since the usual Trump apologists have shut down a discussion they don't like. They often do this to head off the development of a consensus for an article.

Your comment:

I doubt that Trump has any relationship – dubious or otherwise – with truth, facts, or reality but RS do not use "lie", verb or noun. WaPo's latest Fact Checker analysis (Sep 13) counting more than "5000 false or misleading claims" uses "lying" once, and it's not about Trump ("One of his campaign aides has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI". Until they do, we're stuck with false and misleading, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many RS which use the words "lie(s)", "lying", and "liar" about Trump. There has been a very high level debate among editors of RS as to whether they should use those words, and some have just decided to start doing it, and others won't. So it all depends on the source, and we do use the words used by RS. Here's a section about that very subject. It's rough and not ready for use, but is part of an article I am preparing, all based on hundreds of RS. No article on the subject will ever exist if Trump's apologist continue to get their way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'll get back to you when I have more time. Just this for now: I once tried to add one or two reliably sourced sentences on the "Swedish" descent of the family. They were deleted pretty much immediately with the reasoning that they made the article too long, if I remember correctly. Here's a recent article calling Trump a serial liar. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Media's hesitancy to label him a "liar"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some writers have said he should not be called a "liar" because one cannot know his motives, all while admitting he was very untruthful and had no respect for the truth. Others have declared the situation to be so serious that it was time to dare call a sitting President a "liar". They seemed to focus more on the fact that the consequences of the constant repetition of falsehoods is the same, regardless of motives. Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at The Washington Post explained: "Whether you like Trump or not, it's demonstrably true that he says things that are easily proved false, over and over again. The question the media has regularly confronted is not whether Trump's facts are correct but whether to say he's deliberately lying or not." David Greenberg, an author and a professor at Rutgers, questioned whether one could always know Trump's intent and motives, and he expressed caution about calling Trump a liar, even though he admitted there was a "... barrage of false, duplicitous, dishonest and misleading statements emanating from Donald Trump and the White House in the last week...." Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, reporter at BuzzFeed, explained why BuzzFeed did not take accusing someone of lying lightly: A lie isn't just a false statement. It's a false statement whose speaker knows it's false. In these instances, the president — or his administration — have clear reason to know otherwise. Reporters are understandably cautious about using the word — some never do, because it requires speculating on what someone is thinking. The cases we call "lies" are ones where we think it's fair to make that call: Trump is saying something that contradicts clear and widely published information that we have reason to think he's seen. This list also includes bullshit: speech that is — in its academic definition — "unconnected to a concern with the truth." On NBC's Meet The Press, January 1, 2017, The Wall Street Journal's Editor in Chief Gerard Baker said the journal wouldn't call Trump's false statements "lies": "I'd be careful about using the word 'lie'. 'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead." Three days later he wrote: Trump, 'Lies' and Honest Journalism, By Gerard Baker, Jan. 4, 2017 "Mr. Trump certainly has a penchant for saying things whose truthfulness is, shall we say for now, challengeable. Much of the traditional media have spent the past year grappling with how to treat Mr. Trump’s utterances. "In a New Year’s Day broadcast on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” moderator Chuck Todd asked whether I, as the editor in chief of the Journal, would be comfortable characterizing in our journalism something Mr. Trump says as a “lie.” "Here’s what I said: “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.” "Note that I said I’d be “careful” in using the word “lie.” I didn’t ban the word from the Journal’s lexicon. Evidently, this carefulness is widely shared in the newsrooms of America. While some of the fresher news organizations have routinely called out Mr. Trump as a liar in their reporting, as far as I can tell, traditional newsrooms—print, digital, television—have used the term sparingly. Given the number of times Mr. Trump seems to have uttered falsehoods, that looks like prima facie evidence of a widespread reluctance to label him a liar. "Why the reluctance? For my part, it’s not because I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has said things that are untrue. Nor is it because I believe that when he says things that are untrue we should refrain from pointing it out. This is exactly what the Journal has done. "Mr. Trump has a record of saying things that are, as far as the available evidence tells us, untruthful: ..." Veteran reporter Dan Rather strongly disagreed with Baker's position, calling it "deeply disturbing". He proposed a very different approach: "A lie, is a lie, is a lie." He wrote: "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures." He directly criticized the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, and also Donald Trump, for lying, and wrote: "The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before." Greg Sargent also responded to Baker, stating that "Donald Trump 'lies.' A lot. And news organizations should say so." He also referred to "the nature of Trump's dishonesty — the volume, ostentatiousness, nonchalance, and imperviousness to correction at the hands of factual reality...." Sargent described how Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, wrote that Trump's lies should be called lies "because he has shown a willingness to go beyond the 'normal sort of obfuscation that politicians traffic in.'" Adrienne LaFrance: Calling Out a Presidential Lie The New York Times editorial board has used “lie” to describe Trump’s rampant abuse of facts. And Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has taken the media to task for not using the word. Other outlets ― including MSNBC, New York Magazine and HuffPost ― will use the word when it’s merited. Don’t call Donald Trump a liar – even if he is one, John Rentoul, The Independent, February 4, 2017 Don’t call Trump a gaslighter: he’s just an inveterate liar, Donald Clarke, Irish Times, January 21, 2017 Don't Call Trump a Liar—He Doesn't Even Care About the Truth, Lauren Griffin, Newsweek, January 29, 2017 "News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (“Alternative facts” seems to have been swiftly rejected.) "... [WSJ] Baker’s critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isn’t lying. He’s bullshitting. "Bullshitter-in-chief? "Bullshitters, as philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in his 1986 essay “On Bullshit,” don’t care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, bullshit is characterized by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.” Frankfurt explains that a bullshitter “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” "Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has a strong message for the media trying to keep up with President Donald Trump: Get ready to call him out, and get ready to call him a liar if you have to. “I know we’re only three weeks into this, and it’s going to take time because the establishment of DC media has never called a DC president a liar,” Boehlert said on Salon Talks, adding, “You cannot call a lie a claim.” "But for newspapers — like the New York Times, which recently used the word lie in its headline — is adapting slightly. And that’s something that Boehlert thought should happen more often. “It’s time to get rid of these headlines,” he said. “If it is a demonstrable, proven lie, like his claim that journalists don’t cover terrorists attacks. He’s lying to journalists about their own work, and they still won’t stand up and say, You’re lying about that.” According to Alexandra Whiston-Dew, a lawyer and expert in media law at Mishcon de Reya, the British press does not call Trump a "liar" because of differences in defamation laws. The American press is protected by the First Amendment, whereas the British press has a different burden of proof. Why I’m Not Mad at the Wall Street Journal’s Gerard Baker. "The embattled WSJ editor doesn’t fear his newsroom’s wrath. As long as the paper’s Trump coverage keeps his boss happy, he’s invincible." Sources

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 I voted!  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Chao

That huge chunk of "achievements" text on the Chao page is most likely by COI accounts who are adding flattering content about here. It should just be removed in full. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bundling

Re: [2]

It's not a really big deal, but since you said "per Mandruss" I wanted to make sure you understood that my preference was to accept the duplicate and keep the bundle at 6. If you understand that and disagree, I defer to your judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss: I understand and, in this case, I prefer the separate ref because it saves 199 bytes. Every little bit helps, in view of article length complaints/flags. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:19, 16 June 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 I voted!  (Almost missed the deadline this year.)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

DS alert refresh: AP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 10 months overdue. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss: Thanks. I'll defend the semicolon to my last dying breath. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

You seem to be making a lot of partial reverts on a 1RR article. A partial revert and a full revert are the same for 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)