Jump to content

User talk:24.42.166.244

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2022

[edit]

Copyright problem icon One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links are plenty for others to review. Repost a concise selection of links without quotes if you want them to be considered, with specific suggestions, and please stop using the talkpage as a soapbox for your own views, or the quoted texts as proxies. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Thank you for the information. I did not know. Sorry for the inconvenience. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise picking four or five of the best and linking them, rather than presenting a long list that nobody will want to review, and keep your commentary along the lines of "possible dissenting views" without your own editorializing. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ps It seems a mistake to assume that nobody would want to review a long list. Seems better to give too much that not enough information. Some will read everything, while many won't. But i hear you! 24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: My interpretation of the following excerpts of WP policy is that my post would have been ok if i had used quotation marks with no italics. Is that correct? Of course the quotes you removed were posted on the talk page, were properly sourced from notable people, and were not posted for public consumption. They were posted only for any interested editors to consider as possible doors to research for material that they may or may not have decided to put on the article.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text
    "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (e.g.(...)) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting."
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations
    Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. This page sets out guidelines for using quotations in Wikipedia articles, from a style, formatting and copyright perspective.
    Recommended use
    In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:
    When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
  • Is my view correct or no? Thanks again for your time. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:QUOTEFARM. There is no reason to select quotes from sources on talkpages when you can just link to the source and let other readers read the whole reference. See also WP:BLUDGEON - you don't need to pull in a dozen Chomsky quotes to convey the idea that Chomsky dissents. 50 to 200 word quotes are almost never appropriate, unless you're quoting the Gettysburg Address. And we get that you think the Russians are getting a bad deal. That's not a reason to use the article talkpage as a soapbox, using Chomsky, Assange, Snowden, Paul and others as proxies. See WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for you to counter what you perceive as Western propaganda. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to read wp:spa and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. There's allot to learn, almost overwhelming. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can learn a lot faster by editing in less contentious areas, and not coming across as a wp:pov pusher. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a mockery of the concept of NPOV here. Saying one thing, then doing another seems to be the way here. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we reflect what RS say, we do. You have provided no RS supporting the text you want to add. This wp:npov is clear we reflect what RS say (we do). All you have argued is this again this idea, bring dodgy sources to back up a request to add something we (in fact) already say. Thus you look like a wp:nothere account, here only to push Putin's version of the story. So (as I said) it might be an idea to show you are in fact here to help build the encyclopedia and are not here to push Putins POV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your views & suggestion. You might want to review this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. Best wishes, 24.42.166.244 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is not infinite and doesn't require us to set aside Wikipedia sourcing and editorial policies to satisfy Russian talking points. You may have noted that the WMF is not on the best terms with Russia these days and has an active initiative to combat disinformation.. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see. Thank you. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of being here only to "push Putin's version of the story" & aiming to "satisfy Russia talking points" are both ignorant & false approaches. In good faith, I am encouraging a NPOV. My views are shared by many people around the world, including countless U.S. citizens who hope to see the USA succeed & become an intelligent & positive force in the world, not a goliath/boss who rules with violence & deception. Thank you. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation: "Repeat PoV editor pushing pro-Kremlin talking points"

[edit]

(Note: Changed/corrected author of the following talk quote from 'Acroterion' to 'Czello' after a reply from 'Acroterion' who informed me of that error)

to quote: Czello (talk): "I'm just going to WP:DENY this as this is a repeat PoV editor pushing pro-Kremlin talking points)"
My reply: Accusing me of being a repeat PoV editor pushing pro-Kremlin talking points is a dark & deceptive way for that editor to push his POV & abuse his authority. His false & desperate allegations were posted after I posted the text (below) with plenty of what WP considers to be 'reliable sources' on this page: Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Renaming_article_to_Ukraine_War '. where another WP editor has asked: "Does anyone but wikipedians call this the Ukraine War? I propose renaming this the Ukraine War and removing the current redirect."

Posted & censored:

A few days ago I suggested renaming this to "US proxy war with Russia" but it disappeared promptly without a trace. Perhaps US/NATO Proxy war with Russia per Leon Panetta would be more fitting. Trying again & adding RS links:
As many know, there are a good number of speakers & authors in & out of the US, who share that view. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of censored post.

It is what it is. Enough said. :-) 24.42.166.244 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was another editor who said that and reverted, but you pretty much lost everybody by parroting Russian pretexts in favor of "special military operation." After that. nobody's going to take you seriously. As for proxy wars, we don't title the Vietnam war, Korean War or the various intifadas proxy wars, though the same arguments can and have been made. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing out that it was a different editor. I will correct that mistake. Your POV is your pov. IMO, as stated above, it is myopic, incorrect & misleading. Thanks 24.42.166.244 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Surely you don't imagine that you can actually speak for everyone or do you? Perhaps you haven't noticed that our nation is much more divided than the establishment would like us to know. 24.42.166.244 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it was not a war started by America, rather it evolved into a war involving Amerca after Russia launched a full-scale invasion. To change the article title based upon recent events in 8 an year war makes little sense. As to the accusations, you have pretty much only edited in this one topic area, and pushing a particular POV. I suggested it might be best if you dropped this topic and instead edited in unrelated areas to learn how we do things. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 13:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.42.166.244&oldid=1096345227"