User talk:Bought the farm

ready to edit

just starting out here Bought the farm (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, Bought the farm. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hello Thegooduser, thanks so much for the welcome.Bought the farm (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You're Welcome! Please feel free to drop by My talk page anytime to leave a message if you need any help!Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Bought the farm, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bought the farm! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Hello, Bought the farm. I see you are new here; welcome! You do need to understand Wikipedia's principles in order to edit here. The most important is neutrality. That means that we must not say things in Wikipedia’s voice that are not neutral. If we are saying something derogatory or negative, or for that matter if we are praising something, we must only do so to the extent that we can credit that actual wording to a source. It also means that we can only use Reliable Sources, sources that have editorial control (in other words not blogs or opinion pieces) and have a reputation for accuracy in reporting (in other words not like the National Enquirer which routinely makes stuff up). In your recent edits to Trump Derangement Syndrome, you cited unreliable sources, and your own entry included judgmental terms in Wikipedia’s voice ("noting the numerous calls for impeachment, the media’s coordinated editorial attacks and the continued outrage on the left while asking a critical question that few have raised," "the hysterical and hypocritical media coverage by CNN and the New York Times"). These edits have been removed. But if you feel they have merit and belong in the article, you can go to the article’s talk page, Talk:Trump Derangement Syndrome, and offer revised wordings, or your arguments for why the material should be included in the article. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if other people agree with you, the material will be used. If you have questions or comments for me, you can put them here; I will see them. Your comments about the edits you want to include should go at the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

thanx! jus doin a 'lil edittin Bought the farm (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that the wording of the barnstar admits and encourages a battleground mentality. That's not good. We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts.

To help you understand why this is the case, here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):

• "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace

• "How to cover a habitual liar"

• "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."

• President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims.

• Time to stop counting Trump's lies. We've hit the total for 'compulsive liar.'
• "...what's even more amazing than a President who is averaging -- repeat: averaging -- more than eight untruths a day is this: Trump's penchant for saying false things is exponentially increasing as his presidency wears on."

Sources

Trump's falsehoods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Trump's falsehoods See also: Donald Trump § False statements "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks, and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because he's a "habitual liar". In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies". Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency. According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office, 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office. Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent." Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up." Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true." Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously. Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful". In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency." David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities." Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy". The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth." Other sources "The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team's Flurry Of Falsehoods. The president and his aides succeeded in reaching the mark in just 36 days." Igor Bobic "The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S." Fareed Zakaria "Killing the Truth: How Trump's Attack on the Free Press Endangers Democracy" Philip Kotler The New Yorker has published a series of 14 essays entitled "Trump and the Truth". They "examine the untruths that have fueled Donald Trump's Presidential campaign." The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board wrote a seven-part series about Trump's dishonesty, starting with the article "Our Dishonest President". Fact checking Trump Trump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting." Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers: "Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker — Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact — finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false." PolitiFact "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter" "Donald Trump's file" "PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year." "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods." "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office." FactCheck.org Donald Trump's file "100 Days of Whoppers. Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president." "The Whoppers of 2017. President Trump monopolizes our list of the year's worst falsehoods and bogus claims." The Washington Post "Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we've counted 132 false or misleading claims." "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal" President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims Toronto Star The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods: "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things." "Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker" "The Star's running tally of the straight-up lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far." The Guardian "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide." "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents." NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true." As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon: "The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." References

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Citations on talk pages

Inline citations are really not needed on talk pages. If you want to mention a source for something you're saying, just put it in plain text or use a normal hyperlink. Adding the <ref> tags just hides your references at the bottom of the talk page and makes things confusing, especially if that discussion isn't the bottom-most talk section. If for some reason you feel you must still use the ref tags, please at least insert {{Reflist-talk}} in your text in order to contain the ref list. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

-- Fyrael, Can do. So is the content worthy of being included in the article?? Bought the farm (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You've participated on multiple talk pages, so you'd have to be more specific, though I'd rather leave discussion about a particular article on that article's talk page instead of splitting the discussion between there and here. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that your rapid talk page edits make it extremely difficult to carry on a conversation. Generally, the practice is to think about all of what you want to say, then post a comment, and maaaybe (but not usually) make a tweak or two afterward if it doesn't really change the meaning. Your style of going back and changing what you've said (including the timestamp!) over and over and over again makes it near impossible to respond coherently to. I mean how can someone reply to a statement you've made if the statement is gone or changed completely an hour later? If you feel you need to add more after you've posted a comment, then just add it underneath your original post. See WP:REDACT for a better explanation. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How to ping

I notice that you often ping other editors, and that's okay, but I fear that it often isn't working as intended. This is one example where it won't work. The ping and signature must happen in the same edit. If you want to add a ping to a previously saved comment, erase the old sig and sign again. Then it should work. Otherwise, as long as your sig is fresh, the pings you have just included should work. I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - 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 recently 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 any 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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

this is not disruption, it is contribution on the discussion talk page. This Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics better be in good faith, cause it seems to be a little restrictive to me. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's only restrictive to those who are pushing the limits of what's acceptable here. If you only used RS, you would't have these problems. Now that you have been warned about the DS restrictions, you can't claim ignorance when you get blocked, a topic ban, or a full ban. If you accept the advice you've been getting, you may have a long and pleasant career here. I hope so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

well I hope to be a full contributor. Implied restrictions are hard to accept... I'll say a little prayer for you.. ~ Bought the farm (talk)

Hey, Power and BR, lighten up. Yes, Bought the farm needs to be aware of the restrictions on editing articles. And it is appropriate to let new editors know about the restrictions, which does not imply that they have done anything wrong. The comments you are objecting to were on talk pages, which is different. It's not as if they put their opinions into articles. (Although Bought, you should avoid political opinion on talk pages - even if it's things you read somewhere.) And BR, Bought has not done anything that even comes close to violating the DS. Please stop threatening bans and blocks, which you are in no position to impose or determine, and go read WP:ASPERSIONS. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, many things I mentioned on Brett Kavanaugh talk page reference comments US Senators stated during impromptu TV interviews. Don't know if a TV broadcast is RS here - but it is truthful. I don't like on-line BULLYing ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Bought, just so you know, senators or other politicians giving interviews are absolutely not considered Reliable Sources for factual information. Probably the least Reliable Source out there, in fact. Just look at the way they contradict each other, citing opposite facts; they can't both be right and quite possibly neither of them is. An example of a political claim not to believe: Trump likes to claim that any protests against him are from "paid professional protesters". Not only is there zero evidence of any such thing, but it doesn't even pass the believability test. Millions of people, all over the country, recruited and hired overnight? The biggest corporation or the richest millionaire could not possibly pull that off. (Maybe he is thinking of his own 2015 announcement of his campaign for president, where he actually did pay some actors to appear as supporters.) Bottom line, you can believe what you like and who you like from a personal standpoint, but Wikipedia only accepts neutral reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, learning ~ Bought the farm (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar 2

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 06 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have you copied the barnstar from above and changed the date? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Why Not!!! hmmm... I did this to futher document the Brett Kavanaugh controversy, and call-out the support for our Presidents' legacy.... I added this myself and will again, as appropriate...

BullRangifer, maybe it's time 4u to make it easy onn yourself??? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

--MelanieN, I am not familiar with the animosity on Wikipedia. I will continue to attempt contribution, but will limit my content accordingly. Wikipedia has a lot of adversity built into it. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You are learning, that's good. And you have done well to mostly limit yourself to talk pages and not to try editing articles just yet. Because if you started putting material into the articles without a reliable source, or worse yet based on your own opinion, you would get batted down pretty fast. On talk pages you will learn what kinds of talk is encouraged and what is discouraged. Basically, talk about the actual content of the article, and to keep your suggestions within the bounds of established fact. (Hint: we can't usually rely on politicians to give us established facts.) We all have opinions, of course, but we try to set them aside when editing Wikipedia - to focus on keeping the encyclopedia accurate and neutral. When someone seems to be here to try to promote a particular point of view (BTW this barnstar you are so proud of seems to suggest that is why you are here), they will be met with resistance and sometimes hostility. I have already told BullRangifer that he is out of line to make threats against you. Hopefully he will back off, and hopefully you will not give him cause by posting opinions, or material based on unreliable sources, on the talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't know anything about barnstar, but yes I will use and re-use this. ~ proud of what ? The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar while covering the facts.. are u sure BullRangifer is a he??? doesn't seem to be a 'he'. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a male, as in a "bull". (A bull rangifer is a male reindeer, of which I have shot 16.) I wondered about the barnstar because we don't give them to ourselves. The one you copied from above was a nice gesture from an IP. Great. It's the copying and reusing (and changing the date) that I've never seen before. Whatever. There are no official rules about barnstars. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

While it's certainly not against any rules, it's just a disturbing sign of the kind of thinking and editing this user employs. By pretending that they've received another supportive message from another editor when they in fact haven't, it shows that they don't much care about the truth of things. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Cool, I've not received much support here on Wiki for a pro-Trump, pro-conservative voice. we will get by ~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Fyrael, you've bought the farm. Why do you not add content? YOU, Just stay off my talk page, will you? I will never respond to you again - GO AWAY~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You ask me a question, then immediately tell me to go away and you'll never respond to me again. Are you even trying to make sense? -- Fyrael (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A warning

I've been looking over your contributions and it looks like you are spending a lot of time doing what we call "point of view (POV) pushing", that is, editing with an agenda of promoting a certain point of view. New users often come in with the false impression that Wikipedia needs people to advocate their points of view. We don't. We actually need the opposite...editors who are able to put their personal views aside and edit in a neutral manner that reflects what independent "Reliable Sources" say about a subject. You also seem to be using talk pages as a forum for political arguments rather than a space for discussing specific improvements to the article. If you continue in this vein you will quickly find yourself banned from editing articles about American Politics. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Awilley, I came here to leave a similar note, with some specifics--[1] here is a BLP violation, here is a personal attack, here is another personal attack as well as a smear...I could go on. Moreover, I think we have competency issues here: the user's prose is vague, to say the least, they seem to have no knowledge of WP:RS, and I have the feeling we're in fringy territory already. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh no!! I am merely attempting to add legit content, that I find lacking to the articles. Please: Don't be so critical. I am just Adding to a Talk Page to further discuss with others. would have conformed and supported the wiki. I'll stay away from wiki contribution just for you.. bye ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, then maybe you won't mind if I make that a more formal thing, by topic-banning you from American Politics for three months, and I'll tell you why: after these warnings, after the comments made in responses to your comments on talk pages, you still seem to think that "further discuss" is a goal here. I find no realization, not even after this flurry of edits (will you please use preview? or think before you type?), that you committed a serious BLP violation, that you accused another editor of having mental issues, and that Wikipedia is not a forum to simply chat around--Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#No_proof_is_necessary_to_accuse_somebody is another example. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

NO! I object to a formal thang I will but I am learning the editing. It seems preview is not the actual PREVIEW in my experience. bye ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are banned for three months from editing any page, including talk pages, or making any edits related to the topic of American Politics post-1932, broadly construed.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAPDS and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the ban, you may do so via the procedure outlined here, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Awilley, I was waffling a bit while typing this out and when I logged it I saw you have given Steeletrap a more specific topic ban, one pertaining to BLPs in the American Politics area. It seems to me that this user's problems may well be limited to BLPs, and if you think that narrowing this will give the user some leeway while protecting the pages where they've been forumposting and committing BLP violations and personal attacks, we can do that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks fella's, good for you ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is fine with me. ~Awilley (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Isn't this covered by "broadly construed"? wumbolo ^^^ 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wumbolo I suppose so, though it's a bit cryptic, to put it nicely. Let's ask Awilley for their opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I can't make heads nor tails of what was going on in that sandbox. ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar 3

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Gee whiz! You really don't get it. Patting yourself on the back, while making it look like someone else is doing it, is really dishonest and makes you look bad. That barnstar was given to you ONCE by that IP. ONLY ONCE. You do realize that everyone else can see what you're doing, don't you? There are no secrets here. We know you did not just get this barnstar. You have now disgraced and devalued it for the second time. If I were that IP I'd retract the original gift, since you seem intent on misusing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just thought it was appropriate. NO attempt to pat or be dishonest. Not really certain about this, but why not in this situation? C'mon we're only wiki editors here. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you made your point. I don't think there's value in repeating it. Bought the farm, the IP who gave that to you maybe was trying to incite you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Or encourage me... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. But Wikipedia is not a battleground, so if they were "encouraging" you to fight they were still playing you for a fool. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a battleground. But this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar seems soo right to me, here. btw, I'd much rather spend my time on wiki adding potential content VS editing on my TALK PAGE. C'mon!~ Bought the farm (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Calling bullshit. If you read about this Barnstar, it is for protecting the project against fraud, as when a fraudulent charity tried to take advantage of the widespread media coverage of [an] article, not for battling over content with people with whom we disagree, even the bloody Trumpsters. Wikipedia is not a battleground, we don't need it here. And the self praise over it is highly inappropriate.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

I have blocked you for one week for your edits to Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts. An administrator, Drmies, imposed a topic ban on you related to "American Politics post-1932, broadly construed" and this includes talk pages. This talk page is definitely an American Politics page. You must stay away from post-1932 American Politics entirely, everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, if you look at the chat below Drmies's ban notice, you'll see that he later narrowed the topic ban to only apply to BLPs in the American Politics area. It's a bit confusing, but I think he did, and it's obvious that Bought the farm thought so. (The log is no help here, as it merely says "topic ban"). Bishonen | talk 09:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

Cullen328 and Bishonen, then the topic ban should be enlarged to include AP, and the topic of conspiracy theories, broadly construed, because the disruption occurs in those areas. This would of course cover all accounts, including IPs, used by the human being behind this account. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If Drmies thinks that the edits in question were acceptable, then I do not object to lifting the block. I am concerned with this editor's involvement in conspiracy theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, Cullen328, I pondered making this a BLP only block, but I suppose I never responded to Awilley's comment. In other words, it's a full-on AP2 topic ban, as far as I'm concerned, but if you think the editor had reasonable cause to think it was limited to BLPs, we can let this slide. But judging from their comments on Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts I see good reason to not limit this to BLPs. In other words: a. the original topic ban was broad and never sharpened to be limited to BLPs; b. I don't believe this user should be editing in the AP2 aread; c. leniency for this block based on the brief conversation between me and Awilley is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the input from Drmies, I have unblocked you, Bought the farm, because of the possibility that you misunderstood the scope of the topic ban. Please understand that you are topic banned for three months from "American Politics post-1932, broadly construed" and this restriction includes talk pages everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Good solution. I agree a topic ban from the whole of AP2 is appropriate. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

endorse TBAN amd block Read the Barnstar thread above this and now I'm all het up. Clearly, clearly the TBAN is appropriate, if not sufficient due to the battleground behavior. I am doubtful that it will do the trick.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indefinite AP TBAN as broadly as possible. Not for articles under AP, but even tangentially similar topics (e.g. mentioning politics on non-politics areas). I think that this will be a good thing, and will give you time to read the relevant policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, before appealing the ban. wumbolo ^^^ 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Log in

Remember to log in and only use your "Bought the farm" account. Using multiple accounts, in the manner you are doing, is strongly discouraged. It's confusing and your contribution history is scattered. We need to have ONE place where we can always contact you, and know that you will be notified. There are other issues connected to using IPs which make it harder to deal with them, so please remember to log in. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

thanx for the feedback on my home page..... you're very thorough! Bought the farm (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. A dozen edits per day per article generally won't be a problem, but 50 minor edits should be compressed in some way. It may be useful to write/draft consecutive changes offline, e.g. in Notepad, and then copy the section you edited back to Wikipedia to publish changes. Making a lot of edits is not necessarily disruptive as page histories are flexible, but it unfortunately clogs up watchlists. If you have any questions regarding edit previews, please ask. Thanks and happy editing. wumbolo ^^^ 22:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Bought the farm, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to United States energy independence have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your addition to United States energy independence has been removed, 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, so I made a mistake somewhere in all that valid content!!! If your a proof reader that's really nice and good for Wikipedia. However for you to equate me as s "persistent violator" is really an unfair classification. I'll try to be better with the content, but not allowing me to see the error (prev edit) doesn't help much. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop with the rhetoric on the Smollett page. It isn't constructive. The page will be updated appropriately as new information comes out.

This page is 3x under discretionary sanctions. US Politics, BLPs, and race. If you continue in your current fashion you are likely to face sanctions, including topic bans or site bans. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

tban

Actually, per above discussion, you are already topic banned from American Politics. This topic certainly qualifies. I suggest you stop editing this topic immediately before you receive further sanctions. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@ResultingConstant: no, they are not. wumbolo ^^^ 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, I see it expired. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Democratic Plantation (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Democratic Plantation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Democratic Plantation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, All statements are supported by the one RS cited. Did you review the Washington Post article? All statements are easily found in that article. Democratic Plantation is a term used since the 1960's and was just recently reused in the January 2019 news article.

neoterism - is a newly invented word or phrase : the introduction of new expressions. a newly invented word or phrase. A dictionary may have helped you out with that. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

CITATION:

• How the ‘Democratic plantation’ became one of conservatives’ favorite slurs, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democratic-plantation-became-one-conservatives-favorite-slurs/?utm_term=.0275fa1041f9, Tyler D. Parry | The Washington Post, January 8, 2019

23 February 2019

User:Bought the farm - Wikipedia articles should (with some exceptions) be written for general readers, and so should be written in language that will be commonly understood. Although I guessed what is meant by a neoterism, it was only an accurate guess as to what it meant, and neither an AFC reviewer nor a general reader should have to look up a word or rely on educated guessing to read the lede sentence of an article. It is not a good idea to be insulting to AFC reviewers by suggesting that they use a dictionary. You may treat this note as a formal caution that incivility may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement when it is in the area of American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the advice. Absolutely no attempt at incivility here. Not looking for an argument. I think I can eliminate that word from the article and still define the concept of the Democratic Plantation. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Democratic Plantation

You may resubmit the draft, and I will recuse from re-reviewing, or you may ask for the opinions of other reviewers at the Teahouse, or, as an autoconfirmed editor, you may move the draft into article space if you are ready to defend it in a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, re-submitted with different language. I hope it's a winner.... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Democratic Plantation (February 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Democratic Plantation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Democratic Plantation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Democratic Plantation (March 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Democratic Plantation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Democratic Plantation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change

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 climate change. 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

US Politics and climate change

I noticed you received a DS alert about US politics in early October and then

• Oct 30 2018 - three month topic ban on US politics
• Jan 30 2019 - Tobic ban expired

Less than 7 weeks have elapsed, and I'm concerned about the POV nature of your editing in these areas. When folks fire right back up after expiration of a block/ban that's called WP:Gaming the system. Since I'm not asking for formal action, I'm not going to assemble diffs now. Just please work harder to edit as though you wanted to make a neutral encyclopedia, without a dog in the fight.
For one example, shame on those surly non-clappers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Global warming

One of your additions to the above article was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Revision deletion has now been performed. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, or ytou risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI request for community topic ban

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ummm,, ru ready?...my contribution Is legit, ru trying to hind facts?~ ~!Bought the farm (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Democratic Plantation

Draft:Democratic Plantation, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Democratic Plantation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Democratic Plantation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019: blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely per this ANI discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC).