|/Archive 1/Archive 2/Archive 3/Archive 4/Archive 5/Archive 6/Archive 7|
Your Ho Chi Minh revert
You have been continously edit-warring with multiple editors it is clear. You are making nonsensical statements of IP editors not being WP:RS. Reliable sources are things like news etc used to verify the content in the article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. But a user is not a "source". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you are being abusive to to other editors by tying to start WP:RS edit-wars, we can simply put information in the talk page with a request to improve the article. It's relatively futile to use transparent WP:RS arguments to achieve self-righteous, petty objectives in this manner.Santamoly (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m sorry you think I was POV-pushing at the Jeff Sessions article. I have tried my best to respond to you at that talk page. As for the removal of the longstanding content, I agree with you and have said so at that talk page. However, I have not restored the material; that’s not because of any resentment about the comments you directed toward me, but rather because I would probably be blocked for edit-warring even though I have not recently reverted anything at that article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but given Volunteer Marek's propensity to delete impeccably sourced, uncontroversial material on any imaginable pretext, it's easy to see why your edit was clunky, redundant (if Sessions's explanation was "confirmed," we don't need to beat readers over the head with its credibility), and allowed Volunteer Marek to raise the fake issue of snythesis—and for SPECIFICO to follow suit with incomprehsible gibberish bearing absolutely zero resemblance to the sources/issues under discussion. Now we can only wonder whether Volunteer Marek, who is capable of better, will read the source and admit his mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- We'll never know, but I suspect VM would have removed that sentence anyway; after all, he did it in two separate edits, first removing "credible" and then removing the rest of it on the basis that the source didn't verbatim say "confirmed" (though CNN did say "affirmed"). I find my self in the horrible predicament of actually agreeing a little bit with User:MrX insofar as the "confirmation" (or affirmation or whatever) never was really very significant, given that the NYT had already reported unequivocally months before that "Sessions Was Advised Not to Disclose Russia Meetings on Security Forms". That paragraph of the BLP is a horrible jumbled mess of a paragraph, and it doesn't get much better by restoring that one little sentence, though I support your doing so if only to try and prod people toward overhauling the paragraph. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not good
Look, you were warned to edit collegially . Is that your idea of collaborative editing ,? Note your edit summaries and note that you refuse to talk. Also note that your edits are related to US politics. I personally do not care too much about this subject, but you should care about your habits if you want to continue editing in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- What’s the header of the talk page section? If it’s “Vermont electric grid hoax” then I see extensive commentary by this editor there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I made edits and fully explained them on article talk page two days ago , but TTAAC reverted them two times without even talking and responding to my arguments that are pretty much reasonable. This is not a cooperative editing. I do not care and can even accept "his version", but someone else could make a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please undo your 4th revert and take a breather.
- Show me the diffs that you are counting as four reverts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do you assert that my edit is false? The transcript is clear. Search the page on "salacious" and see the TWO references to it:
"At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified."
"During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs)
I'll just post this here because you won't respond (again) if I ping you on the talk page: you're misinterpreting my point. It's clearly quite common on those pages to revert an edit that appears to be from someone making a point (an unfortunate false assumption some may have of me) because they do often attract these types, but you'll note that I specifically removed only the misplaced content from the "Allegations of Mossad involvement" section. I couldn't move it either, as the information was already in the article. It was repeated in the wrong place, worded specifically to "react to" the earlier material and nullify its value. On the entire Wikiproject you will only find this kind of self-contradicting ("criticism of criticism of ...") style upheld in politics-related articles. Try to clean it up and someone may revert, convinced you're picking side they're not on. All I'm saying is that if the source does negate that entire section, as it now claims, said section should not be there. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Aspects are reported, not evaluated. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)