User talk:Kacziey

Kacziey, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kacziey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure the stubbornness re G.G he might be probably happy to be called far left extremist.

Hi. How do you add this as a reference?

Error:No page id specified on YouTube

Kacziey (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald \ Intercept

Pfvr pare com a guerra de edições. Discuta aqui as mudanças que quer fazer. - Daveout(talk) 15:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later article re far left Greenwald https://www.haaretz.com/amp/world-news/.premium-fascism-and-the-far-left-a-grim-global-love-affair-1.7288230 Haaretz is a progressive site. It’s from 2019.

2016: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/12/glenn-greenwald-tucker-carlson-unite-to-dismiss-russian-hacking-allegations.html

Não sei por que você também removeu o artigo da nymag de 2016. 3 ou 4 fontes não são suficientes para citá-los? em qualquer caso, estamos aqui um 2019 do progressuve Haaretz. com respeito.

___

Summary:

Sources on Glenn Greenwald as far-left

1. "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . The New Republic - Jan, 2014

2. Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left “Indeed, it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left.” Washington Post, February 13, 2019 (incidentally Max writes against Trump in WP).

3. The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?". "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018

4. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, Nov. 12, 2019

5. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.." “... Tucker Carlson and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald the crossover...” Haaretz, May 27, 2019.Kacziey (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveout (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kacziey reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: ). Thank you. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Kacziey. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jean-Louis Schefer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing biographies of living persons

Welcome to Wikipedia! I notice you've been editing some biographies such as Ed Moloney, Glenn Greenwald, and at least four others. As hard as it is for a new editor to get on board, what with all the policies and guidelines like Verifiability, neutral point of view, and Due weight, there are some areas which are even harder, because they have a particularly strict set of standards that all editors must adhere to when editing them. Biographies of living people, is one of these areas with extra-strict rules. The following is a standard notice developed by the Arbitration Committee intended for all editors editing in this area. Please read it carefully, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about 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. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing articles about U.S. politics

As is the case for biographies of living persons, so it is also for articles related to United States politics after 1932, such as 2020 United States presidential debates. Among other things in both of these notices, edit-warring is much more severely restricted than is the case for articles that are not covered by ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. Please be aware of this. Please read this ArbCom notice carefully, and follow the links. Once you've read and understood it, you're free to delete this notice. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]