User talk:Shinealittlelight

Hello, Shinealittlelight, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement, and you may wish to read our newspaper The Signpost. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

An extended welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Shinealittlelight! 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 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "civil"

You keep making requests, as if there are problems. Are there problems in your opinion? If so, please quote. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written to help discussions go smoother. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. You don't need to change anything you have written. I'd like you to stop "warning" me about things, and please stop telling me not to make further remarks on the talk page for the Prager article. I have heard what you have to say on these topics. I appreciate your perspective. Perhaps you are wiser than I am. But I have decided to go against your advice and continue to try to improve that article. I enjoy such controversial topics, I have a broad range of expertise on a number of controversial topics, and I enjoy civil debate on them. If I am out of line in any way, please do go ahead and either explain to me or, if I simply continue to be out of line, please go ahead and escalate in the appropriate way within Wikipedia guidelines.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll do my best to avoid warnings, but they are a regular part of dispute resolution, even required under certain circumstances.

I'm sorry to say that you're out of line if you're not going to attempt justify your comments and behavior. Focusing on other editors and their behavior is pretty inappropriate in general per WP:BATTLE. You're also bordering on using the talk page as a general forum for discussion, especially in your interactions with Bus stop. See WP:TALK, which isn't linked from WP:BATTLE.

Overall, your approach has been to drawn upon you own personal opinion, then try to find a way to have the article changed to match your opinion regardless of Wikipedia's policies and the reliable sources. This type of behavior can easily result in a ban or block, especially when the subject matter falls under discretionary sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But you will apparently not say what you think on this score.[1] Given this comment, I hope you'll consider taking some time to help deescalate the situation. The article and consensus-building can always wait. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, I appreciate your time and effort explaining things to me. And I don't want to be disrespectful of your time, so if you don't want to continue discussion, that's totally fine, and you don't even have to reply. But if you don't mind, I'd like to follow up because I feel like I really don't understand where you're coming from on what I think is the key issue. Specifically: You have judged the NPR source in this case to be free of editorial bias. Is that not your "personal opinion"? To me, it seems that this is a controversial matter, which requires people to express an opinion and try to build consensus. But you are saying I'm wrong to express an opinion on this score, right? So where am I making an error here?Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Specifically: You have judged the NPR source in this case to be free of editorial bias. Is that not your "personal opinion"? Now you're making up others' viewpoints.. That's more WP:BATTLE.

The section from POV that you're trying to understand is about editorial bias of Wikipedians, like the bias you're working from. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought you regarded the source as free of bias because of what you said. If that's mistaken, and you think the NPR piece is biased, then please let me know. But I wasn't making anything up about you. Biased sources call for careful treatment. We have to figure out whether a source is biased to figure out whether to subject it to that special treatment.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But I wasn't making anything up about you. You made an assumption, and used it as a point of contention.

We have to figure out whether a source is biased to figure out whether to subject it to that special treatment. No we don't, and continuing to do so as you have so far may lead you to being blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think I was assuming. I asked if you thought the NPR piece was free of editorial bias on the talk page. In your reply, you said that the piece "seems a very good summary and would be a POV-violation to remove." It is of course possible I misunderstand you. But I took this to be an answer to my question: to you, the piece seems like a good summary of Prager's views that does not introduce bias into the Wikipedia article, and in fact it would introduce bias to remove it. Again, tell me I misunderstood your remarks. But don't tell me I assumed or made up your view, since I was basing my take on what you actually said. In any case, I think we have here the root of our disagreement. I think that WP:NPOV requires us to assess whether sources are biased or not. You do not. I don't understand how you can think this, given that this is what the policy says. But that's our disagreement.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV requires us first to put aside editorial biases, such as those you demonstrate and don't appear to be able to manage. In that light, I feel there's much better use of my time than to trying to prevent you from being blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, let's quit talking here. It isn't productive.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: BATTLE [2]: Getting an editor blocked or banned from an article or topic can take a great deal of work, and often results in a great deal of unnecessary drama. I'm hoping that my comments will get you to change your behavior: to keep your focus on content and policy, rather than on other editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My focus has been on content throughout. I'm trying to improve the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Shinealittlelight. It's very unusual for such a new user to get stuck into such a protracted debate, so I'm sorry that that's been your first experience here. Regardless of who's right, arguments between editors are the least fun aspect of Wikipedia. I hope you find other articles to edit that don't involve the same strife. I'll save my opinions on the actual argument until I'm sure I've understood it. By the way, do you mind me asking why Dennis Prager was the first article you ended up editing? I always like to hear how people got into this. Mine was a book series I'd never heard of, Franny K. Stein, because I found a typo; not so interesting, so I leach off others' stories. › Mortee _talk 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice and help. I have broad interests that tend toward controversial subjects. I saw that the Prager page was, in my view, biased, and I thought I could make a suggestion that all sides might be able to agree with. I actually enjoy debate when it remains calm, and I was looking forward to working toward a consensus. I still do! This is not unpleasant for me. I feel I've learned a lot already, and it has been fascinating. I am very sorry, and frankly puzzled, that it seems to be so upsetting to two of the involved editors.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to have escalated quickly. I've got myself interested in the discussion now, so I'll try to mediate if I can. It might be that sticking my nose in isn't helpful, but I've done it now. In any case, welcome. If editing questions come up on other topics in the future you're welcome at the Teahouse or on my talkpage. › Mortee _talk 02:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I'm very glad to have your involvement, even if you disagree with me in the end.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Signing posts

You may want to go back and sign this post. (For others' unsigned posts you can use {{unsigned}}. For your own, probably better to correct by copying a previous example of your signature and adjusting the timestamp). I frequently forgot to sign posts early on; this is just a friendly reminder. › Mortee _talk 02:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee, thanks! I usually sign, but I somehow missed it that time. Not sure what time exactly I wrote the original comment. Should I just stamp it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinealittlelight (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You could have got the timestamp from the page history, but since no-one's replied it doesn't matter. Times are mostly useful for seeing in what order things were said. › Mortee _talk 02:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mortee, I should have thought of that! Lol I forgot to sign my last comment to you, too. I'll be more careful about that. I've now made some additional contributions to various other articles. If you're interested, I'd be glad to get your feedback to be sure they look ok.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and it's great to see someone working on analytic philosophy, particularly Russell. One minor suggestion on that edit - any direct quotation ought to have an inline citation. I can't find the policy right now (not on my C list; I'll add it when I remember where it is) but it'd help readers who want to learn more. If you have it to hand, that would be great. Very happy to see you branching out. › Mortee _talk 03:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Shinealittlelight! You created a thread called Question about Reliable Sources, Editorial Bias, Neutrality, and Personal Opinion at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

miscellaneous comments

Nice work on the revised wording at Prager. On a separate note, are you aware that you have not edited your User page? Even one exclamation point would activate it, after clicking "Save", of course. But it is up to you. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! A little positive feedback is really nice given the circumstances. We'll see how it turns out! Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has been a depressing experience. I welcome your input and hope you'll be back. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not depressed. Actually fascinated by the experience so far. I came in expecting not to be allowed to contribute. I'm not done trying. I still expect that no contribution from me will ever be allowed. But my proposals can and will get better until it is clear that there's no legitimate reason not to accept them. I'm a capable writer and researcher, and there's no rush. But don't worry about me. I'm not upset, and I cannot lose. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just saw that the page was massively changed. My contribution is now not necessary. I'm happy with the result. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PragerU

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PragerU ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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) 17:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Glad to discuss on the talk page, as always. I thought we were collaborating via our notes on the reverts. I agree that further discussion belongs on the talk page at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

See previous arguments. Feel free to take it up on the talk page. If Kruse's twitter feed calling this professor incompetent is due, then so is her response that was published by a RS [3] It's very difficult to take that comment as "collaborating" --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

At that point I was indicating that further collaboration needed to be on the talk page. I'm still happy to collaborate, and I'm going to continue to do so. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"False conspiracy theory" in lead

Just a little history. At the time the RFC was started, the lead didn't even contain that phrase. Isn't that astounding?!! (That sort of undermined the whole RfC, but no one seemed to notice.)

The person who started the RFC depends on unreliable sources and allows that to influence their editing and discussing on talk pages. They really wished to get rid of all three words because they don't believe it's a "conspiracy theory" or that what Trump said was "false". Well, they're wrong on all counts because RS accurately use those words to describe the situation, and so must we.

On occasion, a RS can get it wrong, but most RS get it right, and good editors follow RS and allow RS to form their thinking. Those who don't do that rightly get in trouble. That's what's great about editing here. We can learn an awful lot and bring our POV into line with the facts. To me, that makes this place a huge magnet, because I want to learn what's true, and I want to document that. I don't know what's true without RS telling me.

Here's how the lead sentence read at that time:

• "Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018[1][2][3][4] that has been shown to be false.[5][6][7]"

Regardless of that long separation between "conspiracy theory" and "false", since the lead sentence did contain those words, and it was causing much contention from a certain subset of very vocal fringe editors, I decided to resolve the matter by moving the "false" aspect to the last sentence of the lead. See this diff:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)&diff=892376578&oldid=892369978

That pretty much killed off the RfC discussion and most editors drifted off to deal with other matters, but the RfC was never closed properly.

Sometimes a compromise can stop a lot of contention and edit warring, and that compromise seems to have worked, even though it rewarded and encouraged fringe editors for their disruptive efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Awilley might be interested in this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We've been over this before, and further discussion seems to me unlikely to get the two of us on the same page, but I'll repeat myself to remind you what I said. I continue to think that 'spygate' is highly ambiguous in RSs, and that, even if we cherry pick the most specific and conspiracy-theory-ish meaning, the Spygate theory (in that sense) is unsubstantiated and implausible, but hasn't been shown to be false, and hasn't been characterized as false except in the Vox headline, which is not an RS. I specifically think (as I've said before) that Kessler applies 'four pinocchios' to claims that he regards as baseless even when they're not known to be false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that's a different matter than the main point of this thread. If you want to go into more depth on that matter, I'm always willing to discuss it, but it would probably be best to do it on a personal talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer: sure, we can talk more here if you like. Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff, and I'm willing to try to work it out with you just for the heck of it even if we're unlikely to succeed in achieving agreement. The issues that have really been on my mind are these:

1. Do RSs call the Spygate theory false?

2. Do RSs use 'spygate' the same way as each other?

3. Should there be an article on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (i.e., the Russia investigation run by the FBI from July 2016 until Mueller was :appointed)?

4. Should it be this article?

5. Did the FBI surveil the Trump Campaign during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation?

My own answers are: No, no, yes, yes, and obviously. I'm genuinely and sincerely shocked to the point of feeling like a crazy person by the fact that there are people all over that page who deny that the FBI suveilled the Trump campaign, so that one is especially on my mind. Anyway, I'd be happy to talk about any of these things. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Good start. Now this is just my informed understanding. You can help straighten out my thinking if I get this wrong.

1. Yes, in many ways.
2. Not anymore. In the beginning it was about Trump's May 2018 tweets, and that's what the article is about. His claims were notable enough to justify creation of this article. Since then the sources have gotten sloppy. We should not follow that kind of creep. This article has an original, limited, scope and we should stay on-topic. The article was created about one set of accusations by Trump about one informant, Halper. What happens later about spies and spying can be in another article, or as Further developments in this article. See my sandbox: Surveillance of the Trump campaign (disambiguation).
3. That article has existed for a long time, but not with that title. It is now part of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)‎ article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane happens to also be a RICO enterprise investigation.
4. No, this one is about a specific Trump conspiracy theory about one informant. It has a very limited scope. It happened and is over.
5. Of course, and I don't know of any editor who denies that such surveillance occurred.

I think you're seeing a phantom straw man, and that's why you're "feeling like a crazy person." Surveillance occurred, should have occurred, it was done in various ways, it was done legally, done without political motivations (in fact it was done very discreetly so as not to influence the election), done as part of the Russia investigation (which included the hundreds of secretive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians of all stripes, including known FSB and GRU agents). I know of no editor who denies all this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, ok, a lot here. Let me start with the surveillance issue. Here are examples I find currently on the talk page (there are more, I think, in the archived pages):

... we can't state in Wikipedia's own voice that there was FBI surveillance of his campaign (especially since the truth appears to be the opposite...).

...oppose ... [the title 'FBI Surveillance of the Trump Campaign'] until their is evidence of it actually having happeneded

[the title 'FBI Surveillance of the Trump Campaign'] sounds like it came from InfoWars.

FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - fails WP:FRINGE

Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was "surveilling" the Trump campaign

Seeing these, do you still say that no editor denies that the FBI surveilled the Trump campaign? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't noticed those statements, or I interpreted them otherwise. Were some of these from RfC comments? I notice that the last one is about a source, not necessarily about the existence of surveillance in general, but I don't have the context.

Regardless, I totally affirm that there was legitimate surveillance, but not spying. I know, it's a choice of words, but nevertheless, there is a substantive difference. Words matter and Trump admitted he chose to call an FBI "informant" a "spy" as an act of pejorative rebranding. The first word is neutral, while the second is pejorative when applied in the way Trump and Co. do it. They are engaging in political propaganda.

Intelligence professionals deny that Trump was "spied" on. They are uncomfortable with his choice of words, hence part of the huge reaction when Barr said "spying", rather than honestly admitting that Trump and Co. were surveilled as part of a legitimate national security investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All of the quotes I provided are from the current RfC that is open right now. Very disturbing to me. Maybe I don't understand what these editors mean, or they didn't express themselves well. I don't think I'm missing context. I think that whoever decides the RfC will take their claims at face value, and if it were me and I didn't know a lot about the issue, I'd think there was no consensus on whether surveillance occurred. Anyway, perhaps we can at least agree that surveillance occurred, and there is at least an appearance that several editors are (very surprisingly) denying this on the talk page.

On issue 2, the meaning of 'spygate', your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that, originally, this term referred to all the claims that Trump made in his tweets, which several RSs regard as amounting to a conspiracy theory. But on the talk page, I provided some early sources in which (it seems to me anyway) this is not true. E.g., NBC news back in May 2018 said Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate". Why was NBC so sloppy early on? In a way, it isn't totally their fault: I think that it was never clear, and still isn't clear, what the heck Trump meant by 'spygate'. The original tweets don't say. He makes a bunch of claims and then says that SPYGATE is going to be a huge scandal. but he doesn't explicitly say exactly which allegations 'Spygate' is meant to refer to. And so sources--early and late--have been sloppy and confusing and inconsistent with each other in deciding what he meant, right from the outset. What we have done is cherry pick the "conspiracy theory" interpretation from Vox and NYT over the "inappropriately calling the legitimate investigation a scandal" interpretation from NBC news, or the still other interpretations of other sources. This is POV, it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Let me set the record straight because User:BullRangifer is lying to you and he knows it. When the RFC was opened on April 11, here was the latest revision of the page [4]. It was changed afterwards and he knows it because he is the one who changed it to "Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that has been shown to be false." [5] It is undeniable that the Trump campiagn was spied on, the only question that remains is what laws were broken? In fact, just today the New York Times finally admitted it. [6]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Peace, my friend, he isn't lying. I too think he is wrong about some things. But he really does think that Spygate is a conspiracy theory that has been shown to be false. He thinks that claim is consistent with the claim that legit surveillance was conducted by the FBI. He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy, early in the campaign, paid a lot of money, that was politically motivated. He thinks that Halper was the informant, that Halper was not a member of the campaign, that Halper was not paid a lot of money (at least for being an informant), and that the surveillance was motivated by concerns about Russian influence in the election, and not by political considerations. He may be wrong, but he is sincere in my view. Correct if wrong, BullRangifer. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. What he is lying about is the timing of the RFC. He alleged that I started the RFC to make an issue out of something that did not exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now that I understand better, I want to say: Who cares? The person who closed the RfC says that there was not a consensus against calling the theory false (I specifically double checked with him). I don't understand that judgment, but what can you do. Our side--the side that opposes calling it 'false'--lost the RfC however exactly it started. And no surprise, there are large numbers of experienced editors on the page who bizarrely don't acknowledge that surveillance even occurred at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, calling me a liar is a pretty serious personal attack. AGF. There is a difference between being mistaken, and therefore speaking an untruth, and deliberately stating an untruth. Only the latter is a lie. Now you've got me wondering if I got it wrong! I'll go back and double check. I'll be back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

Start of RfC

• Yes- keep current lead
• No- Change first sentence to "Spygate refers to the unproven allegation that the Justice Department under the Obama Administration illegally surveilled Donald Trump's presidential campaign.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The nearest diff from just before start of RfC shows that Rusf10 is correct. I got it wrong. My deepest apologies. The wording I quoted was apparently from about 24 hours later. I apparently got mixed up on my dates. Gotta be more careful! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Shine..., you wrote: "He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy, early in the campaign, paid a lot of money, that was politically motivated. He thinks that Halper was the informant, that Halper was not a member of the campaign, that Halper was not paid a lot of money..."

There are several misunderstandings there about what I believe. Let me sort it out:

• "He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy,"

• There was an informer. That is true.

• "early in the campaign,"

• Not entirely true, as some of this happened later in the campaign, but this point isn't very crucial. Trump has later claimed it happened in 2015. That's false.

• "paid a lot of money,"

• This is partially true, but we don't know how much Halper was paid for THIS surveillance. Trump is referring to facts that had just been revealed in the press. Halper had indeed been paid over a million dollars for his work, but this was between 2012 and 2016. PolitiFact explains this and rates the claim they are evaluating "false".

• "that was politically motivated."

• That was a false claim. It was part of the investigation into any possible connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference. Campaign members did a whole lot of very suspicious things with Russians, much related to the campaign, and they lied about it. That justified the investigation. It was not political.

• "He thinks ... that Halper was not paid a lot of money"

• See above.

I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, yeah, that's what I thought you thought more or less. That was a total derail from my perspective, but thanks for putting the record straight. If you like, we can continue discussion where it left off above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Two ways to possibly change the position of the Spygate article

Upon further reflection, there are two methods editors can take. Method A, sees editors including the 2019 situation into the article first. After that, then the 2018 situation is re-analyzed, and the ultimate position of the article is determined. Method B, sees us putting 2019 aside, and straightaway analyzing 2018 for its position, after that is determined, then the 2019 situation is added. It's up to you, which method you think will have more success. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure, let's look at 2018 sources. You've heard what I have to say. What do you think? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you’re asking me about what I think. If it’s about the Methods, I now think Method A will have more success for actually changing the view of the article. If you’re asking about the view of the article, I won’t comment until I actually re-view the 2018 sources. starship.paint (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The latter. Let me know what you think when you review 2018 sources. Meanwhile, I've opened the question of "news analysis" pieces at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps let's wait for the RSN discussion to finish for a definitive view on the news analysis pieces first. Or we could do 2019 first while RSN is ongoing. Does RSN affect 2019? starship.paint (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I think your approach of attempting to change stuff from the lede is not making much progress. May I suggest inserting whatever content and sources in the body first, then you would be in a stronger position to use that content and sources to argue for inclusion of material in the lede. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:I agree with your view that the body should be changed before the lead. But, at present, the body never says that spygate is a conspiracy theory until you get to the final section on reactions, where that view is always attributed. So that's a powerful basis for having "conspiracy theory" show up first in the fourth paragraph of the lead, with something like "several commenters have said that it's a conspiracy theory" or something like that. That would reflect the current article structure. Anyway, I'll keep working on the body. But it sure would be nice if people could at least render an opinion on the most recent proposal you made.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to indicate that "conspiracy theory" should show up earlier in the article? Where should it be? Trump and his allies' allegations? starship.paint (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Lol. Well, I don't think that. What you and I agree about is that body should determine lead. I think we also agree (do we not?) that the lead currently features "CT" way more prominently than the body. So what do you think should be done? I think the lead should be changed to reflect the body. This is because I think RS do not generally make much of CT--there are only three sources I accept which do, but countless sources which do not--and so I think it should not be prominent. If you disagree, then you'll want to change the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I know what you want. Thing is, I think there is a low probability of what you want actually happening. This is why I'm suggesting to you methods in which you would probably have more success. starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Your advice appreciated, and I will take it seriously. Thanks. May I ask whether you yourself find the fourth proposal to be good? I mean, it's your proposal, so maybe it goes without saying. But you haven't spoken in favor of it. And BullRangifer hasn't weighed in yet. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I proposed it, so I do accept it. I’m fine with it. But, I think the proposal would have a stronger argument behind it if all the sources were already in the article. Get what I mean? starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I got it. I'll work on that when I get a chance. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are pretty selective about when you are going to make an argument. I'm starting to think that's smart. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's wise to pick your battles. A hypothetical example - I would be wary of any source pushing a massive deep state conspiracy extending up to the current administration (say Republicans Trump picked like Rosenstein, Pompeo, etc). It's hard to believe that the FBI was really trying to stop Trump getting elected when they refused to announce that his campaign was under investigation before the election, whereas they did do so for Clinton (which may have tanked her candidacy), which Rosenstein later cited to fire Comey. Anyway, other times in other articles, I don't always participate in all discussions because simply, I don't care about all of them.

However, do not assume that I am always picking my battles. Perhaps I haven't even seen the discussions on Spygate. I don't use my watchlist anymore, and there are so many articles on Wiki, some of which are definitely bigger fish to fry.

By the way, good job on adding references. Remember to also add the text / content for the references in the body. For example, attempt to discredit. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

- not the cart before the horse... Before using alternate definitions as an argument, perhaps it would be better if the alternate definitions were already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation, and without reading or analyzing every detail above, I'll just drop a thought here. Have you ever considered that highjacking an article isn't a proper thing to do? I've seen such attempts before, and had it happen to one of my better articles (Charlotte's web (cannabis)).

The Spygate article was written about historical events. Maybe Starship.paint won't object, but if someone tried to highjack an article I wrote, I'd be pretty pissed off. Of course ownership behavior isn't allowed, but if someone wants a different article, they should go and write it without highjacking an existing article that's about a different subject. I just had to say that. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer - I don't think it was hijacking. Not when the sources were provided. starship.paint (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't at all specific, so let me try an illustration, well knowing that they can rarely "stand on all four legs." Let's completely ignore anything we know about milkshakes (I haven't even read that article) and just use it as an example.

Let's say that a waitress in a little restaurant made a concoction that happened to taste pretty good, and when people asked her what it was, she said "it's a 'milkshake', because I made it with milk, ice cream, and some jam, and then I shook it. Since it tasted good, I started serving it to our customers and they liked it. People come from miles around, and business is booming! I've started experimenting with different jams and syrups, and they all taste good. Would you like to taste one made with chocolate syrup? It's a big hit around here."

The local newspaper, and finally national newspapers and magazines, started writing about this new concoction and featuring interviews with her. She became a celebrity.

Later, other people started calling their concoctions, often made with exactly the same ingredients, a "smoothie". They even started calling all milkshakes "smoothies". Now people are confused, because the makers of smoothies are damaging the advertising value of the old and familiar term "milkshake" to sell their smoothies, and they are trying to eliminate the term "milkshake", in favor of their "smoothies". Now they even add fruit or veggies to the mix and still call it a smoothie

I'm not sure if that illustration helps at all, but that's what I see happening here. Since RS tell us that Trump and Co. are trying to misuse the terms "spying" and "Spygate" to illegitimately rebrand all legal surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, are we even allowed to give this fringe and political rebranding any weight here, other than to note what RS have said, and that is that it's a counterfactual and deceptive conspiracy theory to make people think that it's wrong to investigate suspected wrongdoing by Trump in any manner? It should only be mentioned as a later development and given very little weight.

If one wishes to write about the subject of surveillance of Trump and Co., then write another article about it, and make sure to note that this use of the terms is a fringe and deceptive misuse of the terms. It still gets little weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I really don't know what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're saying I've violated some policy. I can't tell what proposal of mine you are criticizing. But I don't see how I could possibly be "hijacking" anything, or what that would even mean given that the article doesn't belong to anyone, and given that I've made good, RS-based arguments and sought consensus at every single stage. You and I do have disagreements about Spygate--that is, we have disagreements about what RS have said, from the beginning, about Spygate. And that shouldn't be surprising. It's a controversial topic, and intelligent people will differ on it and will struggle to reach consensus. That's what it should be like to work on these topics on Wikipedia. So, if you don't like talking about politics with people who have a different view than you, I suggest that you try editing in a different area. On the other hand, if you do enjoy this area, the right thing to say to me is "Hey Shine, thanks for bringing a new perspective to this article. I think it's really good not to have political homogeneity among the editors, because that tends to make for worse political articles." Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We share an important belief, one which I have summarized here:

I think we can agree that there are two aspects to the subject of Spygate, spying, etc. The original origins of the words, which were about Halper, and then Trump's later and much broader misuses of the terms to mean all investigations directed at him. I don't understand why you object to that. It's what the RS say.

I think it's wrong to conflate them and let the second aspect subsume and eliminate the first, although Trump would love for that to happen. That is the highjacking I'm talking about.

Instead, there should be two separate articles dealing with each one of those aspects. We have the Spygate article, and then we should have one about the investigations of Trump and Co. Go ahead and write it. I have made a start here: User:BullRangifer/sandbox/Surveillance of Donald Trump and associates. Feel free to help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you that in some cases the argument just doesn't end in consensus, and that's a cute summary of that situation. However, I really don't agree with your view on "two aspects". I think that the earliest news reports included both broad and narrow construals of 'spygate'. The reason I object to your view on this is that I have read the news reports from May 2018. And, if I am correct about early variation in definitions of 'spygate', then I'm not conflating anything, but instead I'm correctly pointing out that we've cherry-picked the NYT definition. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The original authors of the article picked Trump's definition, and when RS discussed it, that's what they were talking about. They were not talking about other surveillance, and Trump wasn't using it in the broader sense yet. That misuse came later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. Trump never defined the term. The best RS didn't define it either. E.g., the AP didn't define it, and there are many other examples. But lots of RS in 2018 did define it, and defined it broadly to mean "there was spying on the campaign" (NBC, ABC) or "there was illicit spying on the campaign" (LA Times) or even "the FBI gained information from the campaign using an informant" (Kessler at WaPo) or ... I'm repeating myself. The NYT did define it your way, though. So that's the cherry we've picked. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Defined", as in the way he used it. That's all I mean. Your sources from May 2018 were all talking about Halper's actions in different ways, but still about the narrow use of the term Spygate as Trump used it. Strictly speaking, that is not "other" uses as in the broader sense referring to any and all surveillance and investigation of the Trump campaign. Trump started doing that later because it was only later that he learned about it. He couldn't use it in a broader sense until he got that knowledge, although we know he does speak and guess about things he doesn't know about, whether real or imagined, all the time. He just makes shit up. First came the narrow use about Halper, regardless of how it was worded, and later came the broader use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we disagree, and I'm choosing to AGF and remind myself that diverging perspectives can be a good thing, just as you said above. We do agree about that much :) Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's best to leave the sockpuppet alone. No one knows Wikipedia policies within a day of starting their account. They must have reason to hide their previous edits. starship.paint (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, will do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the 'fringe' view you mentioned did turn up after all. [7] starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here I was trying to come up with an absurd hypothetical, but I guess nothing is too absurd for Jimmy Carter. Now we can test my prediction that it would be included in some Trump-relevant article! Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Jimmy’s article. Not sure about other articles. Though it wouldn’t be fringe since I’m sure many many many outlets reported it. starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If a lot of outlets report that Alex Jones believes in something, that doesn't make his view non-fringe. If Carter's view isn't fringe, it's not as you say because it has been widely reported, but rather because it is the view of at least a substantial minority. And of course it probably is the view of a substantial minority, and it probably can be included on that basis, attributed of course, even though it's obviously an absurd view. For similar reasons, Cohen's view should be included. What will happen, though, is what has already happened: dumb-bunnies and former presidents alike will be allowed to speak in our articles, so long as they hold the right (I mean the left!) opinions. Meanwhile, Princeton experts will not be allowed if they say something that does not fit the desired narrative. One funny observation: Carter's view is apparently a conspiracy theory, since its a theory about a conspiracy. Lol. What a sham. The editors who argued that conspiracy theory = theory about a conspiracy would never say that Carter's view is a conspiracy theory. Think about that--it's just obviously a crazy level of bias. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Not going to reply to that. Not a concession, because I'm leaving (not sure when I'll be back). Sorry I couldn't finish up on Spygate - Haaretz is a parting gift though. Take care. starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Totally a concession. Lolol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

12 years

12 years and over 1000 edits never seen such intellectual dishonesty. But its been enlightening because I see the true value of wiki. A colossol waste of time and if your side finally brings around NPOV what have you won? Victory over cretinous dishonesty. Your objective nature inspired me but I have no desire to wrestle the pig anymore. Good luck to you, hopefully you choose your battles wisely. I am too weak to resist returning thus closing the account is the only way. Batvette (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; I wish you all the best. I've gotten interested in part to see what happens when a reasonable conservative tries to play by the rules. So far, the result is not encouraging. But that's an interesting and enlightening result in itself. I've also tentatively reached the conclusion that, on anything political, Wikipedia is like a lot of third-rate news media: they aggregate news pieces according to DNC talking points, maybe adding a little extra dose of dumb on top. That's certainly what we're seeing here. I suspect that there are editors who could not identify a single DNC talking point with which they disagree. But I like to see irrationality laid bare. It's sort of fascinating, though I suppose also sort of terrifying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you or anyone wonders where I went, R2 filed an AE case against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_%28IP%29. I didnt see it right away. Perhaps my defense wasnt as strong as it could have been and the case had merit. However one admin closed the case just 47 minutes after I posted my side, without any further input from any other admin. Does this sound fair? Sounds like only one side was allowed to be heard. Furthermore, this was posted from an IP not long after(never interacted with them before dont know them). {Comment redacted per R2's request below} This was immediately reverted by the admin that quickly closed the case. IP returns and is identified as user Astrofilm, a new account, reposts his comment but removes the last half of the comment containing the liberals argument. Admin returns, reverts again then with no explanation indefinitely bans user astrofilm and his IP. Obviously I could appeal this bizarre action but why. Just thought you should see this. Im banned indefinitely from editing any pages or articles in post 1932 US politics. I also dont quite get why R2 needed to open that case. He and starship posted warnings on my talk page about 2 days ago (I reverted them but you can see them in history) and I dont think I posted much of anything after. I can only say this validates my unvcivil attitude. Cheers. Batvette (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. To be honest, I don't think your hands are clean here. You weren't focused enough on content in my opinion. But I agree that it moved too fast and the ban was too severe. And I wish there could be more peace, more camaraderie, more self-reflection, more attempt to work with each other, and a stronger sense that having many political perspectives represented among the editors is not only good, it's essential to the project. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Shinealittlelight, I appreciate that response. Batvette might not understand that he wasn't banned for this political views, but rather for his disruptive behavior. Also, he might not have understood that the comment he copy-pasted here from the IP was posted by a long-term blocked user who has lately taken to harassing me. Some of their allegations are also false. Their comments were removed per our policy on block evasion. Per the same policy: Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. This wasn't exactly reinstatement, but the concept remains. Shinealittlelight, since it's your user talk, would you please remove that quote, or at least the parts that are about me? R2 (bleep) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, R2, I'll redact it; no harm in doing that at this point, I think. I've heard what you had to say, Batvette, which was the point in posting it here anyway. I really would have liked it if all of us could have been friends. I know that sounds a little corny. But it's true anyway. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed my hands werent clean which is why I said "the case had merit" in my post. Was I divisive? Im not sure how to respond to that, when I count 28 individual editors challenging the article, largely on non NPOV grounds, and R2 described it as a couple I was going to fight. When he harangued me on my talk page for personal attacks and the next day in the talk page called me the peanut gallery, I wasnt worried about being civil any more. Anyhoo enough polluting your talk page with my problem, you looked at it and Im sort of satisfied with that admins response on my page. This whole thing will probably be good for me anyway. So on that thanks R2 for enriching me. Happy wikiing.Batvette (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for American politics

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.  Bishonen | talk 23:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC).

Stuck

You're both stuck on the literal use when we're talking about a figurative/metaphorical use. I am prevented from using the Wikipedia term for doing that on an article talk page, so I'll let you know here. It's called IDHT (refusing to get the point) and disruptive behavior. It might be possible to disagree on use of the term rebranding for many other reasons, but doing this is a violation of policy and logic on several levels. Why do you refuse to do the obvious and right thing by staying on-topic when discussing this metaphorical use? By insisting on talking only about the non-figurative use you are deliberately staying off-topic, and that makes communication impossible. That is stonewalling. It's not only a violation of PAG, it's not fair. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we're arguing in good faith. Your argument is just not convincing. Trump did not, even metaphorically speaking, rebrand informants as spies. More importantly, though, it really doesn't matter whether I'm right, because your proposal is out of step with RS, which only use 'brand' and not 'rebrand'. Drop the stick. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing: let's try to assume good faith, ok? Sometimes your argument doesn't convince someone who is discussing the matter in good faith. That's how it works here. It isn't personal, and I see no reason for you to come to my talk page and accuse me of being disruptive. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Careful, Icarus ...

I appreciate your edits on the relevant articles - seem like honest attempts to counter Wikipedia being turned into a propaganda vehicle.

"Careful, Icarus" is a reference to Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show - easy to find on youtube. Not to everyone's humour - but at least it's humour! Cheers! tildetildetildetilde

I have located this. Would this be relevant? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lol. I miss Ferguson. Too late on propaganda vehicle! Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)

On 3 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You have been asked by multiple editors to withdraw your pointed and serious personal attacks against @Tsumikiria: and have explicitly refused to do so. This is a galling violation of WP:NPA and WP:IDHT - and this warning is to advise you to immediately cease this approach, to apologize to Tsumikiria and to strike through your personal attacks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, Simonm223 just beat me in adding this. You have basically stated that an editor supports terrorism based on nothing and refuse to redact clear personal attacks.O3000 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the above, noting that you are aware of the applicable discretionary sanctions

The behaviour mentioned above is enough to get you blocked in the ordinary course of events, it's also possible that you could be topic banned as a sanction. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the user supports terrorism. I said that the user supports Antifa, a violent extremist group, based on the user's own statements. And I said that enthusiastic public support of such a group does tend to undermine a user's claim to good faith. If that's worthy of a ban, then have at it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear, you are refusing to redact your personal attacks? Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that I've made personal attacks. I'm not redacting anything, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated that the editor believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's what antifa believes, and the editor has stated support for antifa. Any means necessary = by violent means. That's how it has always been understood. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Any means necessary = any means necessary. That would include flying planes into buildings. Antifa may be a bunch of disusting assholes. But, I haven't seen any evidence that they believe in such -- and certainly there is no evidence that the editor believes in such. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The term is a term people like Malcolm X use when they want to say that violence is called for. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what a person believes - you're supposed to comment on the content, not the person making the edits, not their motivation. That's precisely what WP:NPA is about. (As an aside, your attempt to assign opinions here seems like an example of the association fallacy. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course we have an article about By any means necessary.. El_C 16:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please be advised of a discussion at AN/I involving you

[8] I'm sure you were aware this was coming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 15:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry. I started supporting you; and then saw your defence of your personal attack. You simply cannot say that people support violence (in the manner you've accused an editor above). Please improve and understand that this is a wall you cannot break; there is zero tolerance for such behaviour. If after the block gets over, you continue on this line, it will be tata Wikipedia. Hope this is clear. Thanks, Lourdes 16:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hey. I think you can do a lot of good here, but you're not doing to be able to do that if this kind of stuff happens. Your focus needs to be on the content, and if you find yourself in a conflict focusing on a user (either yourself or another), it's better to back down and either apologize or just let that aspect go and refocus on the content. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Editors must feel free to be themselves, and their personal biases and beliefs must not be used against them by claiming it indicates they edit in a biased manner or have a COI. Only proof, with diffs, from actual edits, can be used to make such accusations. Discussing and editing are two different things. Personal biases in discussions and in userspace are allowed, but biased editing is not.

Using an editor's affiliations and/or personal beliefs against them is a serious personal attack that rebounds on all editors who express their own points of view in discussions, and such accusations create a chilling effect that would mean the mere holding of a point of view automatically means the editor has a conflict of interest preventing them from editing any related subject. That would never work and such accusations are forbidden personal attacks. Please be more careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• If there is a case being built of POV editing, can someone briefly mention that the editor arguably doing POV edits has something on their user page that indicate that they are biased in such a manner that their editing reflects? Mbsyl (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is so difficult. The opposite is the case. To my knowledge a case of "POV editing" is not "being built ". I notice that your account has been inactive from 2012 to 2019. In the interim have you been using a different account? Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"NPOV wikipedia article on the Nazi party during WW2"

You'll have to answer this when you return from your block. I see you wrote the following:

• "I myself--and I'm sure many of you--would not participate in writing a NPOV wikipedia article on the Nazi party during WW2."[9]

What's that really mean? Don't you consider our articles about the Nazis to be NPOV? Do you have a COI about that subject? (Since you seem to oppose ANTIFA, is there some other reason? are you a Nazi supporter?) Or do you mean something else? I'm really puzzled. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you really accusing them of being a Nazi supporter because you feel they are opposed to antifa? I would strike that if I were you. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. I really doubt it. It wouldn't make sense. Just throwing out questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea that a question could be seen as an accusation, so I have stricken that. I thought it was far enough out there that no one could even dream of taking it seriously. I guess a part of Poe's Law applies here, the part about "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor,..." Humor, satire, and over-the-top exaggeration can be misunderstood without tone of voice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not think you meant it that way, it is why I asked. I have known you a long time now and seemed out of place. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Let's hold off on comments until the block ends. It's brief. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions

@Lourdes: Suppose that someone says that he supports Antifa. Here are my questions:

1. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports Antifa?
2. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports Antifa, which is a violent political advocacy group?
3. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports a violent political advocacy group?

I assume it is a personal attack to say that the person believes that political violence is permissible, since that's what I was blocked for. But I admit, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between that and the statement in question 3 above. So I think your answer to 3 is probably "yes". But then it's really surprising to me that the statement in 2 would be allowed, since the statement in 2 seems to immediately entail the one in 3. Your guidance is appreciated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As said by someone else, you are attempting to connect the dots. That is, you are using multiple syllogisms to come to a conclusion. You shouldn’t do this about an editor, or for that matter, about an article. Frankly, it can be a serious problem in articles under discretionary sanctions. In any case, attack the argument, not the editor. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000—you are intervening between one editor trying to communicate with another editor. In fact they asked on the other editor's Talk page for permission to discuss the issue. How much more propriety would you like? Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

In the context of a content dispute, personal commentary is prohibited. Period. It really is that simple. You should not ever be commenting on an editor or their views. If you have strong evidence that a user is pushing their POV in an article, you can report that evidence to us. But you should virtually never have any reason to be discussing an editor on a talk page. Having a bias is irrelevant. If you don't have hard evidence of policy violations, don't ever imply or accuse an editor of having a bias or a COI. That is a personal attack. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply, Swarm. When you say "personal commentary is prohibited" do you mean to say that all personal commentary (during a content dispute) is a personal attack? Because I was blocked for engaging in a personal attack, and that's the concept that I'm currently trying to understand. Still, I appreciate hearing your view that all personal commentary is prohibited in content disputes, and I would be interested to hear if others agree with this view. (Also, if possible, I would also still like to hear from Lourdes, who was person I was addressing here! But if not possible I understand.) Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

These were also inappropriate (your homework to determine why): 1, 2. —PaleoNeonate – 01:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Should Tsumikiria have a userbox reading "This user supports antifa in combating fascism in both word and action"? I think that wording is too strident for a Userpage. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I support combating fascism in word and action and I find the suggestion, as the grandson of a member of the resistance that such a position is "too strident" beyond offensive. Shame, shame, shame on you for defaming what we used to call heroes. Vexations (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Do you think that all personal commentary during content disputes amounts to a personal attack? Do you agree that all personal commentary during content disputes is prohibited? These are good faith questions; I'd really like to know what you (and others in this discussion) think. I admit that this is not how I understood the policy in the past. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"Shame, shame, shame on you for defaming what we used to call heroes." I didn't realize I was defaming heroes. I thought I was upholding principles for what we should put on our Userpages. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically this, at some point it becomes disruptive. Similar to the misogynistic type userboxes. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A User page can be used to highlight our individuality but not to promote a cause. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• To answer your question, yes. Within common sense, of course. Obviously it's not a personal attack if you're complimenting someone. We're talking about personal commentary with negative implications, such as ad hominem arguments based on a person's beliefs, as BullRangifer explains above (with a link to the relevant clause on the policy page). Obviously "no personal commentary" is a general principle that needs to be treated with common sense, but it is the definitive approach to handling content disputes. It does not just apply to direct insults. Comment on content, not contributors. It really is as simple as that. For example, let's say someone's being a complete prick, and everyone agrees. Is it okay to call them out on being a prick? No, it's not okay to make an accusation, even if you're not wrong. You report them to WP:AN/I with evidence of relevant policy violations, and we will block them. Let's say a user is an obvious sockpuppet. Is it okay to accuse them of being a sockpuppet? No. Again, report to admins with evidence. Let's say someone obviously has a strong bias. Is it okay to imply that they are being motivated by their bias? No, as long as they're complying with policies, their obvious bias is irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of us have strong biases, and the overwhelming majority of us do not POV-push in articles. If someone is editing with an obvious WP:COI, such as a user deleting negative content from an article about their business, of course that's not tolerated. But, even then, you don't attack their character or argue with them, you simply report them to us so we can handle them accordingly. It's really pretty simple. Don't over think it. If you're going to make a negative comment about someone personally, don't. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Do you think that all personal commentary during content disputes amounts to a personal attack? Do you agree that all personal commentary during content disputes is prohibited? Very discouraged, as it may be considered PA by others and encourages defensive statements and off-topic discussion that is not for public article talk pages (WP:NOTFORUM, etc). I don't have much to add considering Swarm's excellent comment. Maybe only that other than ANI, personal talk pages are also less restricted to cast aspersions. Welcome back from the block, it's possible that with these comments it'll be the last, —PaleoNeonate – 05:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  Adding: It's fine to recommend at someone's talk page to remove offensive material from their user page (in the spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:U5, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, etc; I did recommend that to someone who had a user box saying that he hated Islam for instance). If it's very problematic material and the user persists, then again reporting to admins is best (there's no point in edit warring in their user space or to keep arguing endlessly at their talk page, of course). Also, if you find my posts annoying and ask me to stop posting on your talk page, I will respect that (exceptions are standard warnings, WP:NOBAN). —PaleoNeonate – 09:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You requested my responses, so here they are

Suppose that someone says that he supports Antifa:

1. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports Antifa? 2. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports Antifa, which is a violent political advocacy group? 3. Is it a personal attack to say that the person supports a violent political advocacy group?

I am reminded of one case that my hubby shared from law school, where a guy put a case on his neighbour claiming she was a prostitute. He lost the case in court. The next day, he rented a couple of billboards outside her house, and wrote on those that the lady was not a prostitute. I find you replicating what the guy did.

As Swarm rightly says, the context is important. If the above three questions are being mentioned to prove conflicted editing, then the case has to be built up at COIN, and not on the talk pages of articles. On the talk pages, you only comment on content, and not on characters of editors. If you say it on article talk pages, and don't stop saying it after being told to, you'll be blocked. It's not about the truth (she's no prostitute), but if you keep repeating it at any place other than the relevant noticeboards, and don't retract it even when you are requested to, then you will be blocked. Thanks, Lourdes 09:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the replies. I will abide by the rule that there is no non-complimentary personal commentary allowed in content disputes. I will also expect others--especially those who have been commenting here--to abide by that rule with respect to me. I will note that I am concerned that references to "common sense" and "context" are ultimately opportunities to apply the rule in a POV manner--i.e., to hold me to the strict standard, but to allow others to say non-complimentary things about me in content disputes. I would be disappointed with that outcome, and I hope that it won't work out that way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

One other point. If you are suggesting in anyway that Antifa is terrorist, then by implication you are calling any editor who supports Antifa a terrorist. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is all comment on another editor's Userbox off limit? I'm referring to a Userbox reading "This user supports antifa in combating fascism in both word and action" as found here. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is all comment on another editor's Userbox off limit - absolutely not. You can go to someone's talk page and say "I like your userbox" or "I disagree with the sentiments expressed in your userbox. You can say on an article talk page "I see you have a userbox saying that you're fluent in Dutch. Can you help us translate this source?" or "I see you're a supporter of [x], and I'm not. Can you take a look at what I added to make sure it's fair to both sides".

What you can't do is say "you support [x], therefore..." You can't use someone's beliefs or affiliations to dismiss their work or their point of view. Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think one should not be coming to the Antifa (United States) article if one has "This user supports antifa in combating fascism in both word and action" on their User page. I don't even think one should have that statement on their User page at all no matter where on Wikipedia one edits. That is a position of consequence. In the United States at this time passions are running high concerning the pros and cons of such sentiments. Expression of that sentiment can be seen as antithetical to a calm and evenhanded editing environment when questions related to that topic are being discussed. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Beware slippery slopes. Some might consider user page images or words relating to an American flag, guns, religion, political parties etc. as provocative. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In the United States at this time passions are running high... Yes, precisely. If you follow your logic, anyone who is a US citizen is far too invested in the country to write about it in the neutral, dispassionate fashion that an encyclopeadia contributor should. Imagine if someone said that all Americans, by virtue of the fact that they have not renounced all ties to the country, endorse the way that refugee children are treated in at the US border.

No one says that, of course, because it's absurdly offensive. But the difference between that and the arguments about what antifa supporters believe and should edit are of degree, not kind. That's why it's critical, per NPA, to judge only a person's edits, not their beliefs. I know it's hard, but it's the ideal we have to work towards if we're going to work together. Guettarda (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that there should be no personal attacks ("NPA"). Given that the dispute was taking place at the Antifa (United States) article, it is hardly surprising that eventually attention would be called to the User page statement that "This user supports antifa in combating fascism in both word and action". "User pages are for communication and collaboration" and "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia."[10] The above is an WP:ACTIVIST statement relating to a currently hot-button issue. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Take it to a policy page. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my talk page, and Bus stop is free to comment here as far as I'm concerned. I'm generally not very touchy, and I don't mind letting conversation about policy go on here. Feel free not to participate if you don't like it. My talk page is as free as possible within Wikipedia policy. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But "as free as possible within Wikipedia's policy" is not limitless. If the discussion is going to again be about an editor's user box and the related article, it belongs to the respective noticeboard (ANI/COIN), and not your talk page. If any editor continues this track of tag-teaming to pull up the editor's user box and their editing on any page other than the relevant noticeboards, they will be blocked. Bus stop, you need to stop now, or move on with evidence to a noticeboard. Mention this again here and you will be blocked. Lourdes 09:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Say what? Arkon (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Tradition is that personal opinions are permitted, no matter how extreme. One can declare themselves a communist, or an alt-righter, or a young earth creationist, or a flat earther, it does not matter. That doesn't mean you can drag it into content disputes. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What if someone were to explicitly declare on his user page that he is not here in good faith? My current understanding is that one would still not be permitted to bring this up in a content dispute. Is that correct? If so, it seems to me that AGF becomes pretty unimportant. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

On my user page, I have the following:

Advice to WP editors: You will occasionally find that an editor with whom you are debating, having run out of arguments, will look at your user page to find something about you to add to the argument. For that reason, you should not put anything on your user page. In particular, and this is important, never put any advice to editors on your user page as they will surely accuse you of not following your own advice.

I suggest you ignore user pages. But, as a direct answer to your question: Wait until it happens and look at it in context. O3000 (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you think of a hypothetical context in which it would be correct to mention on a talk page that a user has explicitly stated on his user page that he is not here in good faith? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

On their own talk page, or at an administrator noticeboard, sure. As for your previously expressed concern about other editors on article talk pages not treating you to the same standard (it can happen) I then suggest to simply remind them to be back on topic (discuss sources and content, not editors). If they persist, report them with diffs as evidence. During a content dispute, if we're about to criticize someone's background or user page, it's often because it's difficult to accept that we've not achieved consensus (and we should either move on or have recourse to more formal processes). If there are more valid behavioral and policy-based reasons to criticize someone's actions, it may be time to warn at their talk page, and/or report (i.e. edit warring, personal attacks, blatant vandalism, persistent POV pushing)... —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Realize that you can have an actual COI and edit an article TP. Not just support the subject of the article; but as an example, be a representative of the organization that is the subject of the article – so long as you are upfront about it. IIRC, a representative of the AARP has edited the TP of the AARP article. This can be useful as they can point to inaccuracies and missed items. Of course, RS are still required before suggestions are acted upon by editors without a COI. Such an editor is supposed to indicate their COI on their user page. But still, who an editor is and what they personally believe matters little. What matters is behavior and usefulness. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can you think of a hypothetical context in which it would be correct to mention on a talk page that a user has explicitly stated on his user page that he is not here in good faith? Honestly, no. First, I will say that a user who declares that they not here in good faith is typically indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Being here to contribute in good faith is not a personal view, it's a baseline prerequisite for an editor. We have no reason to assume good faith if a user tells us not to. But, let's take this as a thought experiment: a highly established user in good standing with no behavioral issues adds the statement "this user is no longer here to edit in good faith" to their userpage. Should you bring this up on an article talk page in the context of a content dispute? As has been explained for situations across the board, no. You're absolutely right, you should absolutely not use this as an argument in a content dispute. You can bring it up on their talk page, to clarify whether it's a genuine statement, or you can report it to admins/the community. It would certainly be highly controversial, being either a disruptive performance and apparent trolling (resulting in forcible removal and/or a short-term block), or a genuine view, in which case the user would be blocked indefinitely. But still, even in such an extreme situation, do not personally attack them over it. In the most extreme scenario, the user has declared their malicious intent and has been blocked as a NOTHERE troll. If the user propagated a major, non-credible content dispute, in which no one took their side, then it would be worth closing the discussion with a note that the user was blocked as a troll. However, the statement on the userpage itself is not the point, and becomes irrelevant at that point; the bad faith motivation is the actual concern. So, even in this extreme thought experiment, in which a user openly declares their disdain for Wikipedia, you should still not make personal attacks on the talk page. I hope this clears things up. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is extremely clarifying for me and has caused me to have a different take on how things are supposed to work here. I really appreciate that you took the time to explain in detail and with such clarity. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa aritcle is under 1RR

Apologies for being a stickler, but the antifa (however capitalized) article is under 1RR protection. I would ask that you self-undo your last revert for that reason. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to if I did break the rules, but I believe it was my only revert. Am I missing another revert I made? I did do a self-revert...Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You had a long string of edits last night (that I believe generally improved the article), but there were reverts involved, for instance, this one. Cheers, again. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm. That isn't a revert as I understand the term. As WP:RV says, Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion. In the edit you cite, I did not return the page to a previous state. So while it is true that I did remove some content, that doesn't automatically make it a revert. But look, sure, I'll undo my recent fix and return the incorrect direct quote to the text, thereby obviously decreasing the quality of the article. Perhaps you can fix the quote. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I honestly appreciate that. Can you tell me why you don't consider that a revert? It's entirely possible I am missing something. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Always better to be safe than sorry in these situations. I did the deed to fix some fairly incoherent text on principle. Arkon (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, Arkon, "better safe than sorry" approaches can sometimes be exploitable by bullies so that they get their way and make things miserable for their perceived opponents. Not saying that's what happened here, but as a matter of policy I usually don't think it's better to be safe than sorry. To Dumuzid, every removal of content is a revert of some added content in some sense of the word 'revert'. But we normally use 'revert' to mean something more specific than that. The term 'revert' is surely not rigorously defined by policy. But a good sign that it wasn't a revert is that I wasn't returning the article to a previous state. Can you explain why you brought this up given that my recent revert was an uncontroversial fix of an ungrammatical misquote? WP:5P5 would apply here even if I were wrong about WP:RV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would point you to WP:3RR, where we are told that "[a] 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." To me, it seems obvious that it's supposed to be a fairly expansive definition. When you say your "recent revert," you're referring to the undo of Simonm233? I want to be clear so we're talking about the same thing. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I meant my undo of Simonm233's edit, which only corrected an ungrammatical misquote. As for your issue, if I were being lawyerly, I'd argue that 'reverses' means 'puts the article into a previous state' which my action last night (that you call a "revert") did not do. But my real view here is that the technicalities are not important, and WP:5P5 applies. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've gone as far as we can here. Honest thanks for being willing to talk and undo that. Whether you choose to go another route in the future is up to you. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why I brought it up? Because I believe in rules and think they help us all be productive here. I thought your edit was an improvement, but for me, that's not a reason to bypass a revert limit. That's all. My apologies if you were offended. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:5P5. It's a neglected pillar. I am basically never offended, so you never have to apologize about that to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with WP:5P5, but in my humble opinion, it's not a license to ignore all rules always and everywhere. It's absolutely worth breaking the rules in some instances, though for me, those situations are fairly rare and over important issues. Reasonable minds can certainly differ on the question. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody was suggesting that 5P5 is a licence to ignore all rules always and everywhere, so that's obviously not the issue. Rather, WP:5P5 is a licence to make exceptions and not be legalistic when it gets in the way of improving the content of the encyclopedia. By your own admission, you were being a stickler here, and by your own admission, my edit was an improvement. Your whole approach just resulted in a chore that produced no benefit or even any difference to the content of Wikipedia, and ultimately harms the project, since it's this kind of stuff that makes smart, professional people not want to contribute here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm a net-negative for the project then. I'll darken your door no more. Good night. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea whether that's true. In any case, like everyone else, you are welcome to post on my talk page as much as you like. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to see how well WP:IAR works as a response to an arbcom sanction, please be my guest. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

Thought you might like 1 more RS for the most recent Andy Ngo attack by antifa https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/us/portland-oregon-protests.html "Officials and residents feared a melee like one in the city on June 29, when a conservative writer was assaulted by black-clad protesters." "Many have blamed Antifa for the beating, which was captured on video. No one has been charged in connection with the assault, which the police are continuing to investigate." Also interesting to see a more nuanced take on the Proud Boys: "Among the other far-right groups were the Proud Boys, an all-male group whose members sometimes share racist or misogynist ideas, and who have fought with protesters before." Mbsyl (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your view is that both the Spencer and Ngo attacks should be included. I agree. But what I find to be manifestly absurd is to include the Spencer but not the Ngo. I think that position is impossible to defend. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Ngo should be included, as well as Many other things. I would certainly be interested in hearing an explanation of why Spencer is included, but not Ngo. I saw a Proud Boy do a TV interview where he said that the Ngo attack is the main reason why they had this recent rally. Mbsyl (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that Spencer isn't mentioned at all in the Black Bloc wiki. If you have any interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_bloc#Richard_Spencer Mbsyl (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

WLC Mediation

Morning Shine,

I'm unfortunately a bit out of pocket today so I wasn't able to update the entire section. I had an updated version for the KCA specifically, but hand't written much more yet. I wanted to pass it along in case you were doing some work on this section. I'll be back on Wednesday and will take a stab at some of the later sections. I also sent it along to GrettLomborg in case he was working on it.

===Kalam Cosmological Argument===

See also: Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig has worked extensively on a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While the Kalam has a venerable history in medieval Islamic philosophy, Craig updated the argument to reference contemporary scientific and philosophical ideas. Craig's popularization work resulted in renewed contemporary interest in the argument, and in cosmological arguments in general; the philosopher Quentin Smith states: "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig's defence of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher's contemporary formulation of an argument for God's existence."

Craig formulates his Kalām Cosmological Argument in the following manner:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig generally provides three main lines of evidence in defense of this construction. Philosophically, he argues that the existence of past-infinite universe is an actual infinite and therefore metaphysically impossible. Additionally, that forming an actual infinite through successive addition is metaphysically impossible. The third line of evidence is inclusion of contemporary cosmology within supporting arguments, specifically his position that the a cosmic singularity marks an origin of the universe in the finite past. . And his argument that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of 2003 requires that any universe which has on average been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal.

References

• I think this version is a good mix of the original, very long, section, the updated, too short, version and matches the styles of other example articles.

Thanks. I'm busy for the next few days too; not sure if I'll have time to write a draft of that whole section in the immediate future, but maybe. I'll what you've proposed here in mind if I propose anything. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ngo reverts...

See what I did there? Anyway, your edit shouldn't be a 1RR violation since you are making a series of changes at one time. You can make a dozen individual, unrelated changes/removals and it's still 1 revert so long as no other editors make changes in the mean time. Where it gets gray is if there are unrelated changes by other editors during your changes. It's a problem if an editor reverts part of your changes then you revert/remove something in another part of the article. Anyway, short version, do long as no other editors make changes while you are making yours it's just one change. Springee (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think you're right on second read of the revert rules. I'm reinstating the edit. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

PU edits

I just saw your PU edits here [[11]]. I agree with them (see the talk page) but I suspect they will get reverted shortly. I was disappointed that people seemed to want to focus on a partisan summary of the stories rather than what was actually said in the videos. I think MJ's summaries were misleading at best. However, I ran into issues with ABOUTSELF and FRINGE claims. Some aspects of the debate were interesting. I agree with those who say we as editors can't provide a counter point summary of the PU videos. So where MJ says PU claimed "there is no police discrimination", we can't say "the video actually said..." We would either need a reliable source to provide the summary or we would need PU to say "MJ's was wrong, we actually said X". The latter would be acceptable per my read of ABOUTSELF. However, some will claim that is unduly self serving (a debate I was engaged in on WP:V). I do wish more editors were more willing to consider what sources they don't like are actually saying vs writing in a way that is clearly meant to discredit. Incidentally there is a discussion related to a reporter who has been seen as anti-vax that has similar issues. I'm firmly in the "pro-vax" camp but I still don't like the way a BLP seems to want to discredit the subject rather than saying what the subject thinks and why. The latter can always be balanced out by pointing to RSs that say she is wrong. Springee (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My edits only reflect the actual wording in the MJ article. Your point (which I agree with, but which did not get consensus) was that MJ's summaries were partisan and inaccurate. I still think that. But I haven't changed their summaries; I only altered the text to accurately convey their (inaccurate) summaries, and I added attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well so long as your text is closer to the BS MJ said I guess it should stick. Springee (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing research...

...on the WLC page. I wanted to leave you a message here in case my tone in that thread seemed a bit too terse or dismissive. I appreciate your hard work on this mediation and constructive additions. I may (likely) have been a bit burned out earlier on some criticisms. Happy to see your suggestions and I can tell (looking at a history of your contributions to other topics) that they will be well thought out and productive. Squatch347 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Squatch347! I appreciate your involvement as well. I think we've all been a little burned out; I'm really glad that there are no deadline at Wikipedia! Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Flopmn (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:1RR

Hello. Jordan Peterson is under WP:1RR. As your recent revert was within twenty four hours, I request that you self revert. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that my revert was a violation of 1RR. You appeared to be refusing to discuss, and that meant that my first reintroduction of the material was a return to a bold edit, and my revert of your revert was therefore my first revert of the day. However, since you've now commented on talk, I'll agree in good faith to self-revert my one and only revert of the day, and continue discussion on talk. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. I should've posted my response before reverting. While I strongly disagree with your edits, it wasn't my intention to give the impression I was actively ignoring you, so I apologize.

That said, even if I was ignoring you, this wouldn't justify edit warring. I believe that WP:EWN would see this as a violation, but perhaps I'm wrong. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the first revert of the day is not the same as the first revert in twenty-four hours, and WP:EW is pretty clear about that. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit war. As I said, I followed the BRD process. I made a bold edit, you reverted, we discussed. The discussion concluded, and I reinstated the content in line with the conclusion of the discussion. When you then reverted without continuing discussion, that looked like a violation of BRD. But when you made it clear to me that you wanted to continue to discuss, I was happy to back up to the discussion phase, and I have responded. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Andrew C. McCarthy

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not edit warring. Trying to find consensus with you. I think we can improve the article; let's try to work together. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

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.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment

Just curious...do you have a diff to what Swarm once told you? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. Yes, I have a diff here: [12]. The whole discussion is of interest--it is above on this page. (I have never removed anything from my talk page.) It was very clarifying to hear Swarm's ideas after I was blocked for one day as a result of a remark I made about another editor. Swarm clarified to me that even in the extreme hypothetical case in which an editor literally says "I am not here in good faith" on a user page, you should not repeat this on an article talk page, where we should discuss content and not editors. Swarm thus regards any (non-complimentary) commentary on an editor in the context of a content discussion as a personal attack. I've tried to live by this since, and to ask that this standard be applied to all editors, which I think would improve things greatly around here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem with partisan bias

Shinealittlelight self-identifies as a "reasonable conservative" (Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)) - under the heading "12 years" on Shinealittlelight's talk page. I agree that Shinealittlelight is conservative but I believe they are displaying a conservative partisan bias that is impacting on the quality of their edits. Remember, NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. These are some comments that Shinealittlelight has made on their own talk page:

Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Here I was trying to come up with an absurd hypothetical, but I guess nothing is too absurd for Jimmy Carter. Now we can test my prediction that it would be included in some Trump-relevant article! Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)... What will happen, though, is what has already happened: dumb-bunnies and former presidents alike will be allowed to speak in our articles, so long as they hold the right (I mean the left!) opinions. Meanwhile, Princeton experts will not be allowed if they say something that does not fit the desired narrative. One funny observation: Carter's view is apparently a conspiracy theory, since its a theory about a conspiracy. Lol. What a sham. The editors who argued that conspiracy theory = theory about a conspiracy would never say that Carter's view is a conspiracy theory. Think about that--it's just obviously a crazy level of bias. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Little wonder that another editor told Shinealittlelight, under the "What do you mean "civil"" subheading on this page:

NPOV requires us first to put aside editorial biases, such as those you demonstrate and don't appear to be able to manage. In that light, I feel there's much better use of my time than to trying to prevent you from being blocked or banned.

Some of Shinealittlelight's comments come worryingly close to "leftists dominate Wiki" culture-warrior nonsense. This is especially concerning given that Shinealittlelight appears to keep a close watch on certain pages related to conservative topics and relentlessly remove material, including on the page of the ubiquitous PragerU. I believe other Wikipedians should keep a close eye on this editor's page and watch for instances of clear partisan bias Noteduck (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty weird how you are writing a message on my talk page, about me, but in the third person. Maybe you don't know that talk pages are where you post a message to the person whose talk page it is? Anyway, I'm not interested in your perspective on my behavior. If you have a problem with me, feel free to take it up with an admin. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021: Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See:[[13]]. Noteduck (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with PragerU page case request declined

The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU - dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi there. I've named you as a "user involved" in the dispute regarding the PragerU page, which I've sent to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. [14] Please submit your statement when ready Noteduck (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha

I'm headed out the door. Thanks for your note. I should be back in 4-5 hours and I'll take a look at your concerns and see if we can't come to an accommodation. Thanks for your patience. Activist (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I've been home for an hour but have been on the phone since I arrived. COVID-19, unfortunately, can turn 4-5 hours into 8-10 hours. I'll read your changes and respond. Activist (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to remember the lyrics that may have generated your User name. I went to the wrong place, but I'm kind of glad I did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJlt2NFYU8&ab_channel=StringTheory ("Little Light of love") Fifth Element credits background music. Activist (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Unexpected, but welcomed. starship.paint (RUN) 14:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Now, I saw your edits at Antioch International Movement of Churches. Now, in light of recent events at Wikipedia, such as this and that, I would strongly encourage you to declare any WP:COI you may have with the church, whether as a member or as staff. If there is no COI, no problem, carry on. If there is COI, I would suggest declaring on both your user page and the article talk page. starship.paint (RUN) 01:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No coi. Not on staff, not paid, not a member, never been to Waco. I do like fixer upper. And I am a Christian. We could use your help on the page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Good. I'm probably too busy on-wiki and off-wiki. I'm even editing Israel/Palestine stuff now, when I didn't before. But if there are significant problems with editors, let me know. starship.paint (RUN) 03:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN concern

Hi Shinealittlelight, I wanted to readdress my concern over your authorship on The Antioch International Movement of Churches consisting of a vast majority, 50% of page edits since March. Be that as it may I will assume your edits were made in good faith. However, the average editor to this page ranges between 3-7% of authorship, 7% being the second highest authorship. With such a high degree of contributions to this page, it's not unreasonable to respectively raise the WP:OWN issue. Shinealittlelight, do you have any possessive feelings over the Antioch movement page? It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. I know you said you do not respond to "negative commentary" on your behavior, but I still wanted to give you pre-notice and the opportunity to readdress. Pride2bme (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't have an WP:OWN issue, which is in no way indicated by the number of edits an editor has made to a page. I'm doing my best to collaborate productively with you on that article. I don't respond to negative commentary about editors on article talk pages, where we are supposed to focus on content. And I again suggest that you should remove your remarks about me from that page, which, if they continue, will become an issue that needs to come before admin. But other than that I'm happy to collaborate with you on any article, including the Antioch article, where I think you've made some positive contributions. I'd also recommend working on other pages that you're interested in as well in order to improve your grasp of policy, since you appear to be a new editor. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I still think it's a concern, although we were able to work an edit out civilly, it was a chore. I did feel discouraged, from what I can only describe as your possessiveness over the article. Perhaps a milder concern but I'll bring this to the incident board for further reflection.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pride2bme (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)