Your Messages Below
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=750589671 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." 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)
- @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)
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.
Reply from WinSocker
Hey, I did reply to you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing#Dispute_of_source_of_ISIL_claim
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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)