User talk:Sarysa

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

Your Messages Below[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Sarysa. 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)

"pro-Trump bias"[edit]

User:Sarysa 1) Just because I propose an edit you don't like does not mean I am biased in favor of this, that and the other. See this from a talk page from the day before yesterday: I argued that TrumpU was a genuine scandal and called him a "scamster" but shouldn't be in lead, and a very respected admin MelanieN said the same. My recent edits on the Jeff Sessions page have been both favorable and unfavorable: a current federal judge denies hearing that he called a black man "boy" but I argued on talk page that his participation in prosecuting a KKK member was being exaggerated by other editors. 2) I was not arguing that linking antisemitism and whitenationalism was SYNTH. I said that "Bannon's association with the alt-right movement, along with his aforementioned alleged anti-Semitic remarks, have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid."[47][76][77][78][79] was SYNTH as only Harry Reid vouched for the ex-wife's claims, WashPo an NBC did not explicitly say anything that could be parsed as "contributed to" and the SPLC did not mention them at all (as MrX agreed). NPalgan2 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News[edit]

Is there any way this can be resolved? How do you get an administrator to look at this? Because it seems like there will never be a consensus. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Marquis de Faux: I have no idea. I usually pop two pills of Fukitol well before it gets to this point. sarysa (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply from WinSocker[edit]

Hey, I did reply to you here:

While i can understand you may think its "censorhip" to remove that part. Remember its all unverified and therefore cannot be stated. "It is claimed by" is not very well put and it doesnt help that literally anyone can be an ISIS member just by registering a twitter account via a proxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talkcontribs) 21:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker: You can't simply use that questionable logic (multiple reliable sources have confirmed it, but this is irrelevant) to select parts you don't like. You are censoring parts of a reliable source. -- sarysa (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Too much soapboxing and flags[edit]

Just wanted to clarify that I do not object to having reactions within current affairs articles as such, but I very much dislike empty rhetoric being included. I would suggest you took a look at 2017 Westminster attack as a model for citing reactions in future articles, as it is more encyclopaedic and less subjected to quote-bombing. You will notice that direct pertinence of the reaction (or initiator of the reaction to the event) is high on the list of criteria used, which effectively increases the signal to noise ratio and thus the encyclopaedic interest. You will also notice the absence of a sub-page for reactions. Regards, --Ohc on the move (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)