User talk:Circulair

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Circulair. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 00:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Circulair (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert 1

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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "numerous" and "many"

Thanks for your edit. While the sources used already justified the wording, I have added more sources to bolster that content.

Some counts are well over 200 secret contacts, but the New York Times count is still quite incriminating: "Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis."

Also, eight European intelligence agencies documented numerous secret contacts, some with proven Russian intelligence agents, all starting in 2015, even though Trump was already planning in 2013, with Russians, not Americans, to run in 2016, and they publicly pledged their support back then. Trump and his campaign have always denied every single contact. They have even lied under oath about it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BullRangifer...could you please point me to any sources that state Trump was planning with Russian agents (in 2013) to run for president three years later and that Trump campaign members lied under oath...thanks Circulair (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major Russian support for Trump started in June 2015,[1][2] and those efforts had to have been in preparation for some time before they "went live" at that time. The Internet Research Agency began its research in 2014,[3] as far as we know.

The Trump–Russia dossier alleges that Trump and his people had been cooperating with the Russians for "at least five years" (that would be eight years now). How much of that had to do with plans for a future candidacy are not known by the public. There were individual expressions of support back in 2013, indicating that the subject was known to Russians then. I'll post a link to one instance when I find it. It was a ~~2013~~ 2014 tweet or Facebook post by the wife of a wealthy Russian, in which she publicly expressed her support for a Trump presidential candidacy. This was when Trump had visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe pageant.

Keep in mind that Trump has run for president several times.

Some Trump campaign members have been convicted for lying under oath. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read Cultivating an asset. 2009-2013. How Donald Trump became the perfect candidate for Russia's assault on American democracy.

Whether Trump is a witting or unwitting Russian asset is really beside the point at this stage. Many RS and top intelligence officials consider him to be acting like a Russian asset, and his actions to be the same as actions of an asset, IOW they are destructive to Amerian interests and international democracies, and favorable to Russian interests.

In 2016, House majority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told colleagues: 'I think Putin pays' Trump. "House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy."[4] -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above I'd let you know when I found it.

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) 16:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer...you know Seth Abramson is a conspiracy theorist right? He may not be Alex Jones "illuminati/new world order" level conspiracy crazy, but he is a conspiracy theorist nonetheless. Writers at respected outlets like The New Republic, The Atlantic, Deadspin and others have all described him as a conspiracy nut. Not somebody that is "worth following", or an "excellent investigative reporter". Conspiracy theorists (which you appear to be based on your edits) think that Trump is a secret Russian asset in the same way right-wing wackos believe Soros is an all-powerful puppet master. Unfortunately users like you are able to get away with your nonsense on Wikipedia because too many admins seem to buy into this Trump/Russia conspiracy stuff for some reason, so you are protected from sanctions or scrutiny. Circulair (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dependent on Abramson. There are plenty of more RS which make many of the same points, and he's certainly more reliable than the now-disgraced Solomon.

Do you dispute that RS and top intelligence officials describe Trump as acting like a Russian asset, and not even a "secret" one? (Note that "asset" is not equal to an "agent".)
To what "nonsense" are you referring? Please be specific, with quotes. What have I said?

BullRangifer (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you personally may come to different conclusions Circulair than Abramson, his books contain a massive collection of RSs; such as Index for Proof of Collusion. WP is built on RSs.

Trump and associates have far, far more Russian/Ukrainian connections than the average American (maybe start with Links between Trump associates and Russian officials & Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia), and has for a very long time (start with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections). Even though well known, Trump has denied this multiple times, even though his own (ghostwritten) book Trump: The Art of the Deal emphasizes some of his connections.

It is odd for an editor at the lowest levels (only 115 edits to date) who finds it appropriate to admonish Wikipedia's Admins and a "Master Editor III" who has edited since 2005. Have you ~~editor~~ edited at Wikimedia under another username? X1\ (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intended https://static.macmillan.com/static/macmillan/proofofconspiracy/endnotes.pdf for "massive collection of RSs"; Proof of Conspiracy (the follow-up) has such a similar title. X1\ (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert 2

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Drmies (talk) 23:41, November 6, 2019‎ (UTC)