User talk:BullRangifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
SEMI-RETIRED

Some may have noticed that my activity level isn't anywhere near what it used to be. Well, being a Wikipedia editor is just not that much fun anymore.

Wikilawyering has become a fine art that's exploited by partisan POV pushers and, predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers (the Koch brothers control many articles), and NPOV is pretty much impossible to maintain on such articles. It's not worth the effort (which is more like a battle), so a lot of the time I now avoid such conflict zones.

Fixing commas and grammar is pretty uncontroversial. It's a shame that talent, knowledge and experience are wasted. Experienced editors get burned out, and there is not an endless supply of such editors, so Wikipedia is bleeding. Until the community does something to rectify this situation, it will lose out on such talent and the editing pool will become more and more dominated by political hacks and amateur jerks.
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

ToolBox, Traffic stats, Watchlists, Source bin, T&T, Hamsterpoop, Templates, Interaction, OWL, Yadkard, {{uw-3rr}}


Wikipedia industrial-powered search

Do you need more search power? You wish to leave no stone unturned?

AutoWikiBrowser includes a tool called Database Scanner that searches Wikipedia offline from your hard disk. It returns a simple unformatted single-column list of pages that match your criteria.

It is in AWB's tool menu. To use the scanner, first download the Wikipedia Database and unzip it. No login is required to use the tool, so you do not need to be a registered AWB user. Database Scanner supports regular expressions (regex) and it supports two search fields that it uses at the same time: one for searching titles and one for searching page content.

It may take over 20 minutes for a search to finish, so the best approach may be to change to another window and forget about the search for a while, though it can be fun (and enlightening) to watch the titles as they appear on the list (and look some up while you are waiting). Database Scanner also has a filter feature to further refine the list of results.

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

Personal workshop

For some odd reason we ignore the alleged cover-up which is in progress. There are plenty of RS which refer to it, even if they may not use that exact term. Denials, lies, "forgetting", then forced admissions, changing stories, blocking of investigations, moving the goalposts, etc, are what's happening. These factors should be mentioned.

Here is a part of the cover-up. These are Trump associates who have hidden, lied about, "forgotten", and then been forced to admit their Russian contacts and repeated meetings. Some have even been acting as foreign agents (F), and later had to register. Four (X) have stepped back in one way or another because of these suspicious connections. Several have seen the campaign and administration distance itself from them, with denials of their importance or roles, even denying knowing them. Later the truth has come out.

  1. Paul Manafort X (F, said he would, but hasn't yet)
  2. Jared Kushner
  3. Michael T. Flynn X F
  4. Jeff Sessions X
  5. Carter Page X
  6. Erik Prince
  7. Roger Stone
Some sources

Lead sentence[edit]

Current lead sentence
The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections.
Alternate wording which includes the three main reasons
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections to undermine confidence in the U.S. democratic process, harm Secretary Hillary Clinton's chances, and help Donald Trump win.
Discussion (feel free)
  1. Mentions the three basic reasons for the interference.
  2. Uses "U.S." instead of "United States".
  3. I would also support having the words "successfully interfered" in the middle, because that's obviously what happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Beauchamp, Zack (February 15, 2017). "The 3 Trump-Russia scandals, explained". Vox. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  2. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (January 27, 2017). "Memos: CEO of Russia's state oil company offered Trump adviser, allies a cut of huge deal if sanctions were lifted". Business Insider. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  3. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (April 19, 2017). "We just got a huge sign that the US intelligence community believes the Trump dossier is legitimate". Business Insider. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  4. ^ Friedman, Noah; Tani, Maxwell (December 19, 2016). "'I'm asking you a simple question': Fox News host confronts RNC chair over Trump's denial of Russia hacks". Business Insider. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  5. ^ Bertrand, Natasha (April 20, 2017). "The FBI is zeroing in on a former Trump adviser the White House just can't shake". Business Insider. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  6. ^ Lederman, Josh; Klapper, Bradley (December 16, 2016). "Official: FBI Backs CIA Conclusion on Russian Hacking Motive". ABC News. Retrieved April 23, 2017. 
  7. ^ Entous, Adam; Nakashima, Ellen (December 16, 2016). "FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2017. 

B4[edit]

It might be a good idea to change your ivote to B4. I just changed mine. Good edit, btw. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Will do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
On Version B6, I'm wondering if that might make the reader think, so how did Trump win? Maybe mention, "Trump won the electoral college vote after losing the national vote, while nether candidate won a majority of the national vote. What do you think? Also, we're starting to get support for B4, maybe it's best to leave off anymore options? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SW3 5DL, the only reason I try is to see if we can meet Any... part way. It seems important to them to see the word "majority" in the lead. Here's another attempt, incorporating your thoughts:

BullRangifer (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're very good at it. Not sure it will get any votes, though. You should also look at some of the other edits and try your hand at rewriting them (not the ones on the survey, but the ones in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It may depend on how much people want in the lead. Otherwise, B4 is good because it's short and sweet. It gets the key points across, but without any explanation at all. That's where your concern has merit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think B4 is the best. It says it all in just a few words, no ambiguity, just straight out plain English. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Clapper on evidence of collusion[edit]

Hey Bullrangifer, I got your message on the "latest" Clapper interview. Bottom line he testified under oath in front of congress that NO evidence of collusion existed between Trump and Russia during his tenure. My gripe with your revert was you did it because you don't like what he said. He said it and it was reliably sourced that he said it. If you WAITED until he changed his story somewhat and then deleted my piece you would have made a stronger case. I like your user page and agree 100% on your PRESERVE piece. Let all facts be written and the reader can make up their own mind. I almost never revert a good faith edit. I try to collaborate and make constructive additions/ changes. I wish you would give me the same courtesy and hopefully we can work together in the future to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for reading.Aceruss (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the reason it was removed was because we already covered that subject, and much better, without your tendentious addition of the word "whatsoever". See what was already on the page in this section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the other section where it mentions Clappers no collusion statements. The lede still needs balance. There is plenty of collusion innuendo there, and nothing showing the lack of evidence of collusion.Aceruss (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Lack of declared evidence is not the same as no evidence at all. You can't make any conclusion either way from his statements, and you are pushing the idea that there is no evidence. You can't make or imply that conclusion. Clapper hedged his comment very carefully. At the time (January), he did not know there was any ongoing investigation on the subject of collusion. The FBI has a different job than the CIA. Comey hadn't told Clapper yet, and no one wanted to let anyone know for fear of Trump being alerted that he was being investigated. Now we know that there has been an investigation for some time on Trump and his associates, and that investigation is getting into higher gear. The future will be interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Cover-up investigation[edit]

The Trump/Russia investigation has now been expanded from a counterintelligence investigation to a criminal investigation, and now includes a cover-up investigation:

"...authorized to probe whether White House officials have engaged in a cover-up..."
"Even as members of Congress were mulling the possible expansion of the case into a cover-up probe, and its reclassification from counterintelligence to criminal, the scandal appeared to grow."
"Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described the possibility of a cover-up as the third branch of an investigation that began as a look at Russian meddling in the election and broadened into whether members of the Trump campaign had cooperated in that effort."[1]

References

  1. ^ Schofield, Matthew; Clark, Lesley (May 19, 2017). "Comey agrees to testify in public as Trump-Russia probe heats up". McClatchy DC. Retrieved May 22, 2017. 
  2. ^ Shugerman, Emily (May 19, 2017). "Investigation launched into whether White House officials covered up Russian meddling". The Independent. Retrieved May 22, 2017. 
  3. ^ Tillett, Emily (May 21, 2017). "Feinstein believes Trump-Russia probe includes cover-up question". CBS News. Retrieved May 22, 2017. 
  4. ^ Skutsch, Carl (May 17, 2017). "How Impeaching Trump Would Work". Rolling Stone. Retrieved May 22, 2017. 

Trivial content[edit]

Sometimes an editor will object to content they deem trivial. Does WP:TRIVIA apply, or does it only apply to "trivia sections"?

Whether to include such content is an editorial call based on how RS treat the matter. Our opinions are not a factor in how we make that call. If a matter which we might personally think is trivial is the subject of deeper discussion in a major RS, or is covered by multiple RS, then the sources are not treating it as trivia, so our personal opinions don't matter. We should mention it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How not to create "balance" in an article[edit]

Adding unreliable sources to create "balance" is a bad idea for many reasons. Doing so would not "balance" the article. NPOV does not mean a neutered presentation of all views, with an even balance of views from each political POV. NPOV refers to editorial conduct and how editors present biased information from RS. They must preserve the source's existing bias. If an article shows a bias in one direction, it should be that way because that is the dominant bias in RS. That bias must not be changed. Not all opinions are equal, and facts do tend to favor one POV. The article should give more weight to that POV.

The problem exposed by such attempts to add "balance" is that reading unreliable sources twists one's thinking, and then we end up with the twisted view affecting editing, giving unreliable sources more weight than reliable ones in a manner which actually promotes falsehood. It would be better for such editors to stop reading unreliable sources. Editors who read unreliable sources without extremely good BS filters cause problems here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Medical resources[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Medical resources. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Tne price is right[edit]

Though it has been removed now the quote you put the CN tag was lifted from the source above the text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Great suggestions[edit]

You're making some great suggestions on the talk page for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, thank you.

Got any ideas for more new articles on the topic I can write and create? Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I just replied there a moment ago. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay cool. Drop me a line sometime if you think of any others or more ideas on those. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping me deal with stalking and harassment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. Editing here should be safe, and harassment anywhere isn't right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired[edit]

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. Always was a great pleasure working with you, creating prompts for your attention and seeing them acted on, etc. You are the best of this place, mate. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

Please comment on Talk:2017[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)