User talk:Berchanhimez

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. You may feel free to ping me using the {{ping|Berchanhimez}} template to ensure I see your response.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

A friendly note

"Wikipedia does not give fringe theories or conspiracies "equal weight" to the actual facts."

This is exactly on point.

124 separate largely unchanged articles on the Trump is Russia equates to giving fringe theories and/or conspiracies much greater than equal weight.

A further example would be the laptop resulting in Giuliani being actionably libeled at least 318 times on the talk pages.

Wikipedia gives exceptional weight to fringe and/or conspiracies all dependent on political convenience. 2601:46:C47F:5A0:180B:19BC:B0B7:1A3B (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Mate, this quote of yours: this proposal amounts to "I think the most important thing is someone's POV on this one part of the conflict and want to remove someone who disagrees with me on that to make it easier to push my POV" just comes off as assuming bad faith and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Please don't make it a habit? Even in contentious topics, or might I say particularly in contentious topics, we should assume good faith. starship.paint (RUN) 14:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. I have, of course, noticed that you have on multiple occasions accused me, personally, of all sorts of bad faith, and I've been ignoring it thus far, but I also have noticed that you accuse others of the same, without evidence, and that is unacceptable. Please strike/rewrite your oppose vote so it does not accuse the proposer of making a bad faith proposal. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and Levivich: - I didn't intend for my reply to be an accusation of bad faith, more of a "this is a slippery slope and what allowing this sort of 'redefining' of a topic area may lead to". I've struck the short reply and posted a more full reply to make it clear that I was not intending to say it was nominated in bad faith, but that I still disagree with the entire premise of that being a permissible thing to do. I should've expanded on my thoughts to begin with rather than attempting to keep them "short and sweet", especially in the way that I did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for revising your statement, berchanhimez. I must say though, we seem to be viewing the issue in very different ways. You think that the proposal was an attempt to pre-emptively affect future actions by RTH in the topic area. I really don’t see it the same way - the issue that caused this was RTH bringing the ARBPIA case to ArbCom as an involved admin. Now that the discussion is closed, they can no longer claim to be an uninvolved admin at a possible ARBPIA case. That is the remedy that I believe the proposal sought. starship.paint (RUN) 06:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Formal warning on WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct

Do not cast aspersions or make unsupported allegations, even at WP:AE. The expected standard is Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation, and that is even more important in WP:CTOPS. This warning is a result of this AE report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)