User talk:Politrukki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This person is a radical left ideologue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I messaging you right?[edit]

I'm editting from a phone, but I was able to see what you wrote. Thanks for welcoming me here! Sorry abouy that, you're right. I've been doing all of the digging myself, so my ability to be object is skewed.

I'll be more careful with future edits. I'll be sure to make sure the information I'm presenting is from an article.

I'm too close to it. :P MiltownkidZEE (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@MiltownkidZEE: Message received, but it is usually more convenient to post comments under thread where discussion was started. I have temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist, so even if you posted your reply to your own talk page, I would have seen your comment. If you want to be sure that specific user sees your comment, you can create notification by using Template:Ping (like I'm doing right now). Good luck! Politrukki (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


I was going to post as 'welcome' template, but you obviously aren't new. What username did you previously go by? Or are you running multiple accounts? - theWOLFchild 10:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Is that a loaded question in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me? Short answer to your question: this is my first and last account. Politrukki (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course I'm "glad to see you"! I would never accuse you of ban evasion or running a sock account, based on your oh-so-interesting contribution history. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 11:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: Thanks! If you want to criticize my contributions, then please do so – for I cannot fathom any reason why I would ever need a sock account or why I should be banned. So nice to meet you. Politrukki (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope... no criticisms or accusations here. I simply said your contribs were "interesting". Most people would take that as a compliment, not as suspicion. Bye. - theWOLFchild 14:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad Thewolfchild asked the question; that you are not a WP:Newbie is why I made this edit a month ago to see how you would react, and is why I am watching your account, just like I was watching this recently indefinitely blocked editor. But, anyway, it's not like you are under an official WP:Sock investigation. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cruz talk page[edit]

The comments made by the editor were not BLP vios, they were personal opinion and original research and none of it was something that could be a liability issue for Wikipedia (that's why certain BLP guidelines exist). If they were, the other experienced editors commenting would have removed them. I urge you to restore what you removed, albeit leaving all of the section hatted. -- WV 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: With respect, if you are absolutely sure that the material adheres to WP:BLPTALK, is your position that the material was (a) non-contentious or (b) sourced, however poorly?
My first reaction to said material was laughter. Later I thought that adding the material would possibly be a BLP violation, however small, but if the user had added a source – even a poor one – in good faith, possible violation would have been eliminated. Without your revert, I would probably have done nothing. Would you kindly explain how reinstating the material to closed discussion would improve the encyclopedia? The user repented and their self-revert was in no way disruptive. Hence nobody has been wronged.
Many thanks to you anyway! It's always nice to receive civil feedback. Politrukki (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Tara Strong[edit]

I figured out what Tara Strongs home address is so I wanted to share it with the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landensylvester (talkcontribs) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Landensylvester: everyone has the right for privacy. Additionally information like phone numbers or postal addresses has no encyclopedic value. Frankly, I would recommend against sharing the address in any forum. The world would rather remain oblivious.
And if you're starting a new discussion on a talk page, please create a new section (by clicking New section link). Politrukki (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible non-constructive comment[edit]

I didn't mean any offense by my comment [1]. If you are offended then I apologize. I can even do a strike thru if you prefer. Steve Quinn (talk)

I am not offended. I'm a bit disappointed that it is so difficult to collaborate. I'll just ask you to tone down, and that is all I need. Politrukki (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. I will tone it down Steve Quinn (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


With this edit, you appear to be making multiple reverts on an article subject to WP:1RR restrictions. Please self-revert or face the consequences. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, baseless accusations were repeated here, where I have responded. Politrukki (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

I am totally confused by what you're doing - Can you slow down for a sec, cause you're changing citations and their information and it doesn't look to me like the changes you are making are accurate. I'm going to put the article "in use" for 15 minutes to sort this out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I did not plan to do more changes in that section and I'm slow anyway, so please relax.
Okay, you seem to be confused... If you go to this revision before my edit and click [5], you'll end up into References section, and you should see that under ref #5 there's a quote After 11 months of turbo-charged rumors and worldwide publicity over their separation, Donald and Ivana Trump were granted a divorce yesterday.... Mr. Trump's lawyer, Jay Goldberg, said "I do not see any alternative but a trial.". I don't who put that there, but it's not a quote from the NBC News piece, but instead from the 1990 NYT piece.
I simply moved the quote under correct {{cite news}} template and removed the hidden comment you (if I recall correctly) left, because the hidden quote repeats the thing that's in {{cite news}} template, in |quote= parameter.
In your recent edit you removed one extraneous quotation mark I accidentally left, which was nice of you. However, according to your edit "obviously false" is from NBC source, which is not true. Does this clarify things? Politrukki (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice Cup of Tea.jpg
Yep, I was confused. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the number of times that the citation info has been messed up - I have at least 20 hours cleaning up citations that were removed, changed, etc. - but for the most part the editors that were making those changes have moved on. Today, I got concerned about where the correct source is for the settlement/withdrawn sentence and after that a source was wrong and I jerked faster than I needed to.
I was able to quickly see that the issues weren't due to your edits before I put the "in use" tag on. I should have said that it wasn't the most recent edits. I wasn't sure how far I might have to go back, and I do get confused sometimes if I'm processing too much at once (part of a disability) and wanted a space just to sort it out. The "obviously false" is from NPR, I'll make that change. We're cool! Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, but I see that I hadn't looked at the combined edits before posting on your page. SOOOO, sorry!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
My apologizes! I was very confused, my brain doesn't process like it used to - but due to a disability my responses are as quick as when I used to be able to and needed to accurately make "on the dime" kind of reactions! I should have never made this post on your page. A nice cup of tea for you as an apology?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: No problem! I didn't monitor Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations closely until I myself became involved, but my impression is that you took a leadership role when it was much needed, and the article would be much worse without you. Just remember to occasionally take few steps back or you'll cross the line between leadership and ownership. I shall brew some lemon tea, and raise my cup for you.
BTW, your mention didn't work because you didn't sign your post, see Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events. Your another mention did work, and I will reply on the article talk page, after I've done some research and thinking. Politrukki (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, that's helpful! Love lemon tea - and ginger peach! I might have some lemon tea, too.
Thanks, for letting me know that the ping didn't work!! I'll tell Soham321 and he/she can do as they like.
Ok, no rush on your reply back. Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Unusual edits[edit]

Thanks so much for so quickly identifying the issue and resolving it.

You had such great advice for me this morning, I hope you don't mind me checking in with you again. I was wondering what your thoughts are about how to handle situations that arise like this one in the future. I don't need to call out the entire fire brigade. Do you have any suggestions about how you would handle it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Struck this out since you brought it up on the article talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Moved to User_talk:Therequiembellishere § "Ridiculous_re-ordering": Discussion opened elsewhere. Politrukki (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep re-ordering the infoboxes ridiculously. I'm not sure what it is, because several editors have done it, but flipping the order of offices and particularly bringing all the term dates to the bottom of the box is ridiculous. I imagine it's because of something like the visual editor, but I honestly don't know why this keeps happening. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, that's such a small thing that I hadn't noticed it. Nothing else looked changed at all and the main thing I saw was a totally out-of-whack edit order. I don't really think it needs to be there because his name doesn't seem like it's at risk of line breaking anyway, nor do I see particular harm if someone's visual settings are set in a way that it does. But it's whatever.
I have no idea what you mean by "I ask that you'll just let things evolve naturally."Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It's good to finally know it's the visual editor that's doing this though. Thanks for confirming that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


That's fair, I just got the notification pop-up and went back on it without noticing. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Politrukki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your careful, incremental edits to the Bowling Green article. Your work improves the accuracy, while lessening the bias against sometimes unpopular viewpoints on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work!--FeralOink (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Last Night in Sweden AFD[edit]

Thank you! I've done so.--MugaSofer (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned you on Administrator noticeboard[edit]

Thread started on the RFC I added here:

Thanks. I have replied there. Politrukki (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice heeded[edit]

I saw the edits to Loretta Lynch wiki. All is okay. I expect collaboration with others to refine content. please see new content I added in United States presidential election, 2016 about [6.6 Ukrainian involvement]. Paraphrasing the content of cited articles... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this seriously. The content of your edits is being discussed on the article talk page, so I will just address some points that are more about presentation, related or unrelated to your question.
The Politico article you cited says

helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia

whereas you wrote

helping to force Manafort's resignation and by advancing the narrative that alleged Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia

I.e. you just added two words. That's called close paraphrasing, which may constitute plagiarism.
You should add footnotes at the end of each paragraph, not at the end of last paragraph. Of course, if it's a lengthy paragraph, it's best to add footnotes in the middle and the end. If you leave a paragraph without footnote, someone else will later think that the content is unsourced.
I would recommend you to not use article talk page for drafting the first draft. Please use your sandbox for that. It's okay to make corrections to your post as long as nobody has replied you, but if you make several changes, other editors may find that annoying. Politrukki (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see that your edits to the article were revision deleted, which means that there were other problems as well. Politrukki (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

altering other people's talk page comments[edit]

Please stop. It's not even close to being a BLP vio, it's just something you happen not to like. If you really think it's a BLP vio, feel free to take it to WP:AE or WP:BLPN, though I doubt you'll get what you want. Volunteer Marek  23:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think that restoring unsourced material which says that a living person received bribes is a terribly good idea, you're bonkers. By the way, I did not make any legal threats. Politrukki (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. The source is the dossier itself. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


You are behaving like an obsessive propagandist or worst. You and your false, outrages lies will not intimidate me, and you will hear from me soon. Archway (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay! See you soon. Politrukki (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your notice regarding the other user. If you look at my posting history, I have been active on the George HW Bush page anyway. I hope that's okay with you. Thanks again!Posters5 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Posters5: no worries. I trust you. Just be careful if someone asks you to make en edit and they don't tell you why. Archwayh was just blocked for one month. Politrukki (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Politrukki. 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)

e-mail Donald Trump–Russia dossier[edit]

Hello Why have you sent me an email for revdel'd versions of this page? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like primefac refdel'd for copyvio. Cheers, and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: No, that's not correct: revision deletion is still necessary. Primefac used revdel in December while in my email I provided a link to an edit that was made today. (Direct answer to your question why I emailed you: because you are listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests.) Politrukki (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Good. What versions. would be quicker to ask me on my talk -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I got them. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I've used to use email to request revision deletion – and only repeat the request to a different admin on their talk page if the first admin doesn't act (or deny the request) within few hours – because all my revdel/oversight requests until now have involved BLP violations. The next time I need a revdel because of copyvios, I'll consider making the request through user talk page. Politrukki (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Great happy 2 B helpful. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


[2]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Re to this. Any long-standing material on a page is considered to reflect consensus by default, see WP:Consensus. Usually, when you fix something, no one objects. However, if someone objects and revert your edit, you should follow WP:BRD. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought you promised to stop following Volunteer Mark around? Anyway, I was just writing my reply at Talk:Peter Strzok promising to self-revert if VM can cite a talk page consensus for including the material. Meanwhile, you made this revert (19:21) and then at 19:35 you write "by the letter of the restriction Politrukki should be reported to WP:AE unless he/she self-revert". I will hold my promise to the self-revert when I get my time machine running, but unless you can cite a talk page consensus for making your revert, it was you who reinstated an edit without consensus. Politrukki (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
If contributor X "can cite a talk page consensus for including the material"? No, he should not. According to the policy, if you make a bold edit to change long-standing content (no matter insertion or deletion), this is your responsibility to obtain consensus for your edit. But whatever. If you do not understand, this is not my problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand your confusion, but by the time I reverted (R in BRD)
(a) there was no long-standing material: the material was inserted on December 23 (during holidays), and challenged January 9 (I'm not counting edits by IP editors), and
(b) there were opinions by three editors – Stwischu, FallingGravity (the editor who wrote the material), and TheTimesAreAChanging – that the Fox News material doesn't belong (only Martok opposed), and two editors (Anythingyouwant and I) who made policy-based objections about including a subset of the material.
By the time you reverted, there were only two editors (Snooganssnoogans and you) who had made policy-based objections about deleting the material. So, unless you want to report yourself and your mentor (who seems to be having second thoughts, judging by their 20:08 post) to AE, I suggest you drop this. We should stop wasting time on this nonsense (meta discussions) when nobody deserves to be sanctioned over this. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever. It's fine to disagree. (nice edit summary)] - Good bye, Politrukk! This reminds me "Этот гусь свинья не друкк" by Yuli Kim. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


What I think about your character is irrelevant. Had I saw the warning re the Flynn edits back in May, I would have stopped editing. But I didn't and so all of that unfortunate chapter took place. Now that I'm free, I don't want to get into the mud re my assessment of your controversial character, & combined w/ the alleged tactics to help political narrative re the Trump-Russia scandal. I just plea w/ you to end this which hunt, and stop obsessing after my edits. I know the rules of this enterprise, & I intend to respect them. So, please -- stop harassing me. I will follow the rules & I hope you will do so, as well. Cheers Archway (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not saying those nasty things. You got into trouble due to your incompetent editing; specifically reinstating fabricated content in a BLP. If you follow policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA, you should have nothing to worry about. I'm not going to keep track of your edits, but the community will. I'm always interested to know if I violate some policy or guideline, and will correct my behaviour accordingly. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PragerU. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read and heed WP:3RRBLP, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and the discretionary sanctions alerts I sent your way. Politrukki (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this your only account? You write, even in your early comments, as if you had previous editing experience. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
My 7 October 2015 reply at #Welcome...? is still accurate. I take your comment "as if you had previous editing experience" as a compliment. My apologies for keeping you in suspension this long, but I was very busy at the time of your question. I was pondering whether I should write a longer reply or whether I should response at all, because for questions like this there is no answer that can satisfy everybody. I'm glad that our content dispute was resolved. Bye! Politrukki (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar[edit]

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For doing some great, painstaking copyediting on the Trump–Russia dossier article. We may not always agree, but you are a good collaborator, a true wikipedian. Keep up the good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tried to ping you but user page is not active[edit]

There's an RfC at Talk:Trump-Russia dossier. I pinged you at the RfC but don't think pings work when there's no user page. Atsme📞📧 15:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh it worked just fine. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Contradiction" removed[edit]

I see you reverted the connecting bridge between two bits of obviously contradictory information. Normally we are thrilled to use synthesis made by RS for this purpose, especially when it improves the flow of separated bits of information that are obviously connected. (We can't do that, as it would be unsourced editorializing.) The bridge in such cases is nearly always a judgment call/opinion made by the RS, and it makes no difference if it's in an opinion column or other RS.

Edit summary: "(we should not cite an op-ed columnist for statement of facts. Goldberg's column does not seem particularly noteworthy.)"

It doesn't have to be noteworthy. That is not a policy-based judgment. We are not quoting some extremely controversial and dubious opinion statement from that article, which would be allowed if it was a very notable author. This is the word "contradicted".

This false statement by Trump reminds me of the Stephanopoulos-Comey interview; James Comey described this type of false statement by Trump (not THIS statement): "That's not a perspective, that's not a view, that's just a lie." Well, the word "contradiction" in this situation is "not a perspective, that's not a view", just a duh statement of extremely obvious fact from a RS, and you won't even allow it?

We have statements of fact that Trump overnighted in the presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton hotel, which contradict Trump's clear statement that he did not spend the night there, only changed his clothes. The source you removed stated the obvious, that there was a "contradiction" (between the facts and Trump's denial).

What gives? This is totally standard practice here. Is this an example of the "Trump Exemption", where content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar than for any other notable person? This would never happen on any other article. It's not based in policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. The bar for inclusion of any type of unproven allegation (and this isn't an allegation) is very low for public figures. We aren't even in this territory.

Your general and uncontroversial copy editing can be very good, but this is indeed one of the types of controversial edits where we don't see eye to eye, and I'd like to bridge that gap. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to have a discussion about content, please take it to the article talk page. If you wish to discuss general philosophy re: opinion pieces as sources for material about BLP here, that suits me. Politrukki (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Uh, since you archived this discussion even though I said I would comment later, I'm going to make an exception and some content issues here because I don't want to open a new discussion at the article talk page. This is what I was going to say:
A couple of points.
(a) You and I have reasonable disagreement over chronology. I placed the mention of CNN report before two existing paragraphs because the "While Trump and some Republicans ..." paragraph begins with an explanation that Papadopoulos's comments were reported in December 2017. The two paragraphs are about December 2017 reporting, so "CNN later reported ..." kind of comes breaks that chronology.
(b) As you can see, I omitted |access-date= from the ref: access date is mainly relevant only when the publication date is unknown (a notable exception would be when source has been updated and the new date differs from original), see template documentation for {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, and WP:CITEWEB.
(c) I don't understand the purpose of the paragraph (some kind of miniature lead?) you added ("At some time during the summer ...") when the same thing is repeated in the second paragraph.
Here (a) and (b) are just general points that require no action. Politrukki (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
So sorry about the delayed response. I hadn't noticed you had commented here. I see that I apparently archived a thread too early. That was not my intention. I thought it was proper, because you had already made the change, and I thought you meant that you would make the "comments afterwards" somewhere further down on the page. I didn't understand it to mean in that same thread. My bad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your points above (a, b, c), I'm a bit confused. I located the content, but it's been written and rewritten by various people, and it's true it's not ideally written.
Regarding "access date", I thought that information was useful in case an article was revised or went dead. That way a discrepancy between our content and a later version could be explained by the access date, or if it went dead, it would help us to locate the version at that time in the Internet Archive. I don't really know much about any other functions. I just usually include it because the tool I use does it.
Point c is indeed a lead sentence, but it's not ideal. I wish I had an exact date for the start of the investigation, but I'm not sure we have that information. That first part is what's good to have there, but, yes, the second part gets repeated. Hmmm...
I do think it's good to keep things either topically organized or chronologically organized, depending on the subject. Would you like to give it a try, or point out what you think is wrong and I'll try? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
"I thought it was proper ..." – Okay. No problem. It's just that I did not want to open a new discussion for some relatively minor and miscellaneous things.
"Regarding 'access date'" – To be clear, I cited reasons why access date should be omitted, but the real reason I mostly oppose using |access-date= is because it adds clutter. If I just want to quickly see the publication date of a source (while reading diffs or otherwise), seeing another date just bogs things down. Not that much, but enough to annoy. I have used RefToolbar as long as I remember, and I would recommend it to everyone. It's likely that I have never added a new ref without using refToolbar.
"I wish I had an exact date for the start of the investigation ..." – I believe the closest thing we have is "late July 2016". I abhor the so-called section leads (if the section does not have subsections) and I think the one at Trump–Russia dossier#FBI's Russia investigation should be removed, but other than that, there does not seem to be any major problem. If something bugs me, I'll just make bold edits or open a discussion at the article talk page. Politrukki (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
At the time, a little doubt popped up in my head about archiving that section, but then, after checking to see if you had made the edit (you had), I figured the matter was finished. Next time I'll check.
The RefToolbar... The way I have my preferences set, I think that's accessible in my editing window. It creates a pop-up window where I can enter each detail. The tool I use automatically populates that information. Sometimes it doesn't catch the author, and I have to manually add that. It also creates the "ref name" part some of the time, using author(s) and date. If not, I then create it so it's unique enough that it rarely gets duplicated by some other article.
Strictly speaking, that section lead isn't necessary, but I think the "late July 2016" info should be used at the beginning to set the stage for what follows. Go ahead and try to improve that section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Stephon Clark[edit]

You closed a discussion that didn't need closing and falsely stated that there's "unanimous support". Please undo the close and let sleeping dogs lie. This can still be challenged by an RfC or an appeal of the BLPN close, but I don't see anybody doing either of those. @MelanieN:. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to type "almost", not "also". Apologies. Fixed now. I closed the discussion because at least one person in the discussion wanted the discussion be closed. I don't see why you or somebody else cannot start an RFC. Hope this helps. Politrukki (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick repair. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

An addition to the Trump dossier page[edit]

Comey's perspective of leaking.

I made an addition of content to the page. I noticed that you are good at noticing poor paraphrasing or editorializing and otherwise tracking source conformance so I wondered if you might give me your opinion on the content in general (not necessarily every aspect). I put quotes in most of the references which should simplify that a little bit. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Thank you for your compliments. I have now read the material twice, without spending too much time reading the cited sources. I'm already familiar with some of the sources, but most are new to me. The material appears to be well-written and adheres to neutral point of view, but the big "but" is that the material is not directly related the dossier. Yes, the dossier alleges collusion (or conspiracy), but not all collusion allegations originate from the dossier. It might be fair to say that if general collusion allegations not mentioned in the dossier (about Trump Tower meeting etc.) have not been proven, then neither have the collusion allegations in the dossier, but there are good sources like NYT that specifically say that the collusion claims in the dossier have not been publicly proven.
On the surface this looks like excellent material for the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article. Politrukki (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Politrukki: Thanks for the comments. It was not necessarily my intention that the whole paragraph be content in the dossier article.
Instead, here was my reasoning:
1. There were large-scale problems with the article
2. Talk page participants essentially insisted all discussions must be tiny, micro discussions of specific content issues
3. That made it impossible to address the macro issue because if I tried to change the POV in a specific content issue, they would reply "you're missing the big picture from RS's"
4. Hence I had to show people that the big picture from RS's was different
5. By doing this research I essentially refuted the argument, popular at that talk page, that all RS's have declared with confidence Trump is guilty or probably guilty.
6. This argument was not being used to create explicit "Trump is guilty" WP prose, but it was being used to force POV decisions on specific content issues
7. This was a violation of NPOV in the sense that the article was presenting a POV that differed markedly from high-quality sources, even if there were no explicitly false statements
8. Again, by doing the research, I have shown people (IMO) that this was wrong
Anyway that's what I was thinking. My goal was to get people talking about sources and, separately, to break this hostile little log jam with certain editors constantly insulting other editors on the premise that the latter editors are reading Russian propaganda and trying to put it in WP. At this point in my life I don't have time or patience for the talk page horse trading and hashing out prose.
This was also the ultimate point of my rambling comments weeks ago, essentially asking people to use high-quality US newspapers more heavily in the sourcing and track their views. As of now the article is based very very heavily on a few staunchly left leaning British journalists (Harding, Borger, and the Business Insider writer Bertrand). Factchecker_atyourservice 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Donald Trump Barnstar.png The Donald Trump Barnstar
is hereby awarded for excellent contributions to Trump-related articles. You're hired! – Lionel(talk) 07:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd DS alert[edit]

It's odd that you posted a DS sanctions alert on my Talk page, because I've never interacted with you before. Or at least never interacted with you before with your current account, perhaps you have another? Dave Dial (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

??? Just to why you would make such a query, Dave Dial. How would you feel if the same was asked of you? Atsme📞📧 21:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been accused before, and I respond to people that believe I am a sock to take it to SPI. Funny that you should pop up here, since the only real edits I've made that might be in the controversial area from the DS alerts were regarding you. Isn't that a funny coincidence? Dave Dial (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello and nice to meet you. I was skimming some of the discussions at Talk:Donald Trump (I don't read most of the stuff there because the debate is usually so boring and predictable) and saw some of your comments like this and this. Next I checked your talk page to see whether anyone had left you a discretionary sanctions alert and it turned out you were not aware of DS. That's about it.
If you check this talk page above, you'll see that the alert was given by Coffee. I don't remember having any interactions with Coffee before that message, except for a thanks notification from Coffee – and it's possible that it was from somebody else, but I don't believe Coffee was socking.
By the way, the first diff I provided shows you attacking Winkelvi, which proves your statement "the only real edits I've made that might be in the controversial area from the DS alerts were regarding you" wrong. Now, I have had some kind of content disputes with Winkelvi before. Do you think that I ran into content disputes with Winkelvi in order to obfuscate, and we are all each other's socks (boy, are we a clever bunch)? That was a rhetorical question; I have pretty thick skin, but if you continue to make personal attacks against others, like you did above (21:20), I will use my liberty of removing uncivil posts. Politrukki (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Bruce Ohr[edit]

It's not a matter of editor competence that is hindering the Bruce Ohr article. Several people are pushing a false narrative of events surrounding Trump-Russia-Spygate. These editors may even be paid to push propaganda, perhaps by foreign governments; something the FBI needs to investigate. Anyway, if you wish to edit this article I will support you on Talk. I do not have the time to do battle every day right now.Phmoreno (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Phmoreno, what you write above is way over the top. Such accusations violate quite a few rules. I'll ping some admins to find out what they think of this. User:MelanieN, User:NeilN, User:Awilley, User:Acroterion.
In spite of the above, I'm still curious to learn about this "false narrative", and what you believe to be the "correct narrative", with the sources which you believe support it. We're always interested in improvements, and if we're getting it wrong, as you believe, then set us straight. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Phmoreno, here we get some clues about what you believe is a "false narrative" and the unreliable sources you use.[3][4] The Gateway Pundit is not a RS, in fact it's one of the worst, right up there with Breitbart and Infowars. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes, IOW false narratives, and you consider it a RS. Wow! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Do I remember correctly that The Gateway Pundit is one of those conspiratorial websites? If it is, this does not bode well for you, Phmoreno. Frankly I don't understand why anyone would even read sources like that. Politrukki (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated reply, but lately I have been busy in my life.
Please don't make comments comments like "These editors may even be paid to push propaganda" without strong evidence, even if you don't mention any names. I don't believe your assertion has any merits, but if you have evidence, please use proper forums such as WP:COIN or, if you have private evidence, email WP:Arbcom to avoid potential outing of editors.
I see that Bruce Ohr bio has some problems (that have not been fixed during my absence) related to WP:POV (for instance, why is Ohr's demotion not mentioned in the lead?), WP:NOR, and WP:V, but they are not massive problems. I may do few edits, but I don't plan to edit the bio much. The article is under 1RR restriction, which several users have ignored, wittingly or unwittingly, but such violations have been largely ignored, which means that edit-warriors who do not follow policy and have no interest in collaboration can "win" content disputes by hitting revert button, which would be Wikipedia's loss.
With regards to your promise to support me on the article talk page, I always appreciate policy-based support/rebuttals, but I don't need cheerleading.Face-grin.svg While I am as vulnerable to confirmation bias as everybody else, I base my edits on policies and reliable sources and I am prepared to update my positions in light of new information, e.g. good arguments or new sources. Politrukki (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

DS violation[edit]

This is a DS violation. Not all of it. But the stuff on Brennan is. You tried to remove it before, even though it's been in the article awhile. I challenged it. You've now removed it AGAIN. That's a DS violation. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Likewise the phrase "with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit" has also been in the article for some time and this is ALSO the second time you've tried removing it, which ALSO violates DS, since your removal has been challenged. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. The only things that rings true above are "You tried to remove it before", "You've now removed it AGAIN.", and possibly "Please". You got this backwards. Maybe you should try discussing this on the article talk page and addressing the policy-based arguments that have been pointed to you? Politrukki (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Further reply on talk page. Politrukki (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And here's my reply:
"By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions" - it's obvious you didn't even bother looking at the edits in question but instead ran over here to make false accusations. I didn't make any edits today to the article. In fact, I haven't made any edits to it for the past five days. Reinstate anything or whatever. So quit the bullshitting. Your edits were challenged twice and you've restored them. You're in violation of DS, despite all the fake threats you scream on other people's talk pages.
And whether this is "original research" or "unsourced" (that's not true either) is beside the point. When your edits are challenged you need to get consensus. Not start edit warring. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And it's your edits that have been challenged so it's up to you to start a talk page discussion and get consensus. Volunteer Marek 18:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I specifically referred to this paragraph:

"On August 16, 2018, John O. Brennan, former Director of the CIA, stated that Trump's claims of no collusion were "hogwash": "The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets."[1]"

which you tried to remove twice even after your attempt at removal was challenged.

You then responded by coming over to my talk page and accusing me of something that was so blatantly false, it's laughably ridiculous (somehow I violated the DS restriction on this page today even though I haven't made a single edit to it!) and worse, you try to muddy the waters by citing some other text than the one that you're edit warring over. Apparently because some OTHER text was added recently, that makes it ok for you to remove OTHER text that has been in the article for a while. How the hell does that work? And how is this suppose to give you immunity from DS? Volunteer Marek 18:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Brennan, John O. (August 16, 2018). "Opinion - John Brennan: President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2018.