User talk:Dec212012

Welcome!

Hello, Dec212012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Studio / Live, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Studio / Live

A tag has been placed on Studio / Live requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Love-StudioLive.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Love-StudioLive.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Love Studio Live.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Love Studio Live.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Boston Red Sox have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boston Red Sox. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

It isn't a typo as you well know. This is pure vandalism. Stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Boston Red Sox, you may be blocked from editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of your edits

Hi,

I wanted to explain why I reverted your edits on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates article. You'll notice that after your revisions, this: [1] is what it looked like. The eighth and ninth debate tables were broken. Also, you mentioned in your summary that you deleted the candidates who were no longer running; this wasn't necessary, as the current revision already has a gold background for certain candidates indicating that they dropped out, which you can see here: [2]. I hope this helps you understand why I undid your edits. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leading paragraph of Jimmy Dore

Hello, I noticed that you've repeatedly reinstated a version of the leading paragraph which states that Dore criticizes both the Democratic Party and Republican Party equally.

The lede of an article is supposed to reflect the body of the article. and notability is determined by sources. As of right now, sources do not mention him criticizing the Republican party, so this is unsourced and non-notable. Please do not keep re-adding it to the lede.

Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jimmy Dore. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

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 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. The Jimmy Dore article is subject to a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. Please remove your reinstatement of the claim that Dore criticizes the Republican party. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Dore. Please stop re-adding unsourced information to Jimmy Dore. You have been asked to stop repeatedly but you have not been using the talk pages or even providing any edit summary. This is not a productive way to resolve an edit conflict. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources would you like of Dore criticizing both the Democrat and Republican parties? He has regularly criticized Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney just to name a few. You’re adding nothing constructive but instead removing the word ‘Republican’. The page has already sourced Dore is no longer affiliated with either the Democrat or the Republican party. Editing out his criticism of only the Republican Party is not true. I’m not sure why you write “you’ve been asked to stop repeatedly”. I have used the talk pages, and created a thread there. I have even left notes when editing unless it is just a simple update of subscriber numbers which YOU changed back. A simple YouTube search would have shown his number of subscribers but without source you instead changed the number lower. This note you write is not true in the multiple ways I’ve shown. Dec212012 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this wasn't ever supposed to be some big edit conflict. The simple fact is that the lede of the article is supposed to reflect the body of the article, and content in a biography of a living person needs to be sourced. You have never provided a source. The article never mentions Dore criticizing the Republican party. The sources in the article never mention Dore criticizing the Republican party. You have never provided an edit summary with any rationale for re-adding this information, nor have you been discussing this on the talk page. All you've done is re-add it over and over without citing sources or explaining your edits. This message to me right here is your first attempt at communicating with other editors.

I also have to question whether or not you're acting in good faith with the criticism that I reverted the slightly updated subscriber/view count. You always updated in addition to re-adding the claim that he criticizes the Republicans, so it only served to make it harder to revert your edits. Nevertheless, I still tried to re-instate your updates of the subscriber/view count, but then you reverted my edits anyways to reinstate the changes to the lede while claiming that the reason you reverted was because I was not showing an accurate "member count." You've also insisted on changing the word "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party" despite being asked not to, which is at best inexplicable and at worst evidence of you viewing the encyclopedia as a political battleground.

Your disinterest in editing collaboratively became such a problem that I sought page protection, but it was declined on the basis that only one editor was being disruptive, and noted that if you continued, it's quote "time for a block." I've tried to reason with you, I've tried to ask you politely, I've tried to talk to you over the edit summaries, I've tried to reach out to you on your talk page, I've tried to warn you more than once, and I've tried to pursue page protection so that we can just take a chill pill and talk instead of trying to get administrators involved. I've been more than patient and more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until now. Please just get the message so this doesn't need to continue to be an issue.

If it's vitally important to you that the lede of the article claims that he criticizes both major parties equally, 1) find some secondary sources 2) add prose to the body of the article 3) update the lede to reflect the article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I am not trying to make this article a “political battleground” but instead just the opposite. Let me begin by saying that to only write that he criticizes the Democratic Party is disingenuous. Can we at least start there and realize that is why I write to you today? You write that I “need a source” to prove that he does the same equally of the Republican Party, fair enough. I hear you. You then write the sources in the article do not reference his criticism of the Republicans? As I stated above, which you have even failed to acknowledge he does that. I am more than willing to communicate here peacefully with you, and have the same equal voice to show a true and accurate description of a living person. I gather from your message that you are not so much doubting that validity but instead the lack of source? I hear you.

I do not feel the need to reach out and contact an administrator in this matter, but if you feel I’m somehow being disruptive or untruthful that is your right. My lack of communicating with you is not true either ? Why do you write that? I am writing you now and have answered you on this thread since your first writing of Oct. 13? Disingenuous.  Dec212012 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel the need to reach out and contact an administrator in this matter, but if you feel I’m somehow being disruptive or untruthful that is your right. My lack of communicating with you is not true either ? Why do you write that? I am writing you now and have answered you on this thread since your first writing of Oct. 13? Disingenuous Dec212012 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to please read the articles Talk page ‘Democrat or Republican’ where I did what you wrote above, yet with a source of The Boston Globe content is still not being allowed. This has been an ongoing problem since October 2021 and still not solved. I appreciate your help in working toward solving this disagreement. Thank you Dec212012 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 21

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you checking in SlaterSteven, and have already addressed you in the Talk page of the article. There is no WAR, but instead another of the numerous attempts to ask you to clarify your reasoning for removal which you still have not done. I added three sourced sentences to an article, one of which was a direct quote from the living person by a RS The Boston Globe, and you choose to remove them baselessly. I ask a moderator to weigh-in if you feel we can not come to an amicable agreement. Thank you, the sentences are below in case you didn't see. I look forward to your comment

 1.As a comedian, Dore has shown consistency in criticizing both the Democrat and Republican parties since 2008.

>>> It was at this point I referenced one of literally thousands of videos, coming right from the living persons mouth, criticizing the Republican president GWB. Problem?<<<

2.In May of that year, Jimmy was quoted in The Boston Globe as changing his act a bit to “lay off the George Bush specific jokes and do more jokes like, here’s a joke about health care”.

>>>Again, I referenced The Boston Globe who quoted the comedian. Problem?<<<

3."He soon began to criticize the incoming Obama administration for continuing The [[Iraq War". >>>Dore's criticism of Obama (Democrat) is already legendary. You seem to have no problem with this addition as referenced by the article<<<

I reverted you once, not more than once, and if you read wp:editwar you will see nowhere does it say "unless you are right".Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you have had to be warned about this thrice in two months, on the same page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You begin by writing, “you will see nowhere does it say "unless you are right" “??? What does that even mean ? ? You need to take a break. I stated nothing like that, ever. You continue to try to escalate this conversation / edit into war. I’ve done nothing but ask you why three sentences are not allowed. Please answer: …instead you refer me to WP wpa and other mystic policy writings that try to dilute the conversation and do nothing to foster any community spirit as I read the instructions. You are edit warring, being generally dismissive of FACTS backed with reliable sources about three sentences, yet continue to give no rationale why. Could you please here explain for ALL? Dec212012 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit wearing but making mutup0le reverts in article space. You seem to justify that because "I added three sourced sentences to an article, one of which was a direct quote from the living person by a RS The Boston Globe, and you choose to remove them baselessly.". This read to me like you staying you were justified because you were right. If that is not the case what did you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the exact opposite of: ‘I am justified because I am right’. I am including three sentences with sources. You disagree (your right) but attack the source if you take issue to what was written. BE SPECIFIC. Saying an editor analyzed a video and came to a conclusion is not what is at point here. George W. Bush was a Republican. Period. I’m not sure how that could be disagreed with but if so, PLEASE explain. In 2008, Jimmy Dore criticized Bush. He said in the article, as proof for you because you seem to disagree, that he was ‘moving away from GWB jokes’. Bush was a Republican. He’s criticized Trump (another Republican president) as well as senators and Congress that happen to also identify as Republicans. You seem to be vehemently defending one point, while not allowing a free and fair discussion of the full story. He has openly, numerous times, critiqued both. And your deletion of the entry still has given no reason except I ‘analyzed a video”. There is no analysis of material from The Boston Globe which is a direct quote. I sourced his criticism of a Republican. Anything further to add? Dec212012 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have earned you about edit warring, ignore it or not, your choice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And learn to wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening I appreciate your checking in today Slater but once again you bring nothing helpful, nor a reason you removed the content. Once again you put a WP link to peruse, but can’t explain clearly why you removed the content. I suggest maybe you should learn to write a clear thought. Your sentence does not make sense “I have earned you” and you have still yet to explain why you removed the content in the first place. No you cry edit war and that somehow your edit is right because you did it. Exactly what you accuse me of above. You’ve given no reason except only to refer me to read Wiki pages instead of explaining specifically why you removed the sourced content. You do nothing to foster a spirit of community, except links for others to read. Again, I’ve tried to ask you here and on the articles page numerous times and you’ve given links without even addressing what exactly it is you take issue with. If you choose not to include a direct quote from a living person from a RS in the body of the article, and feel you are in an edit war, it may be you that needs to give a reason for why you feel that way. You also have a choice. The community is here to help, if you would kindly explain why the article was removed? I am beginning to think you are never going to give a reason. Dec212012 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are we gonna do with you, Dec? I did everything short of getting AN/EW involved in trying to get you to stop re-adding your spin on the lede, and you haven't stopped. You're still making an effort to refer to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party" too, I see. You're still using the updated subscriber count as a thinly veiled excuse for reverting the people who remove your changes to the lede, too. To your credit, you at least technically tried to cite your sources this time, but your "source" for overhauling the lede was an unearthed YouTube video from before Dore even had a channel where he made jokes about Bush. That's not a source.

There's a simple reason why the lede says that his videos are known for their criticisms of the Democratic party but doesn't say the same about the Republican party: almost every paragraph of the section on his political views contains sourced sentences mentioning his criticisms of the Democratic party, but the word "Republican" is nowhere to be found in the article. That's it. It's that simple. It's not a conspiracy. At least four editors have reverted you now and explained why, so the fact that you're still insisting on re-adding that revision while claiming that we've all "given no reason" is extremely troubling. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit Vanilla, you seem like a kind enough person with pure intentions. I respect that. You write well, and clearly while giving me something to answer. You even made me smile with your opening words, but it quickly devolved after that. YouTube isn’t a source? The living person saying it in a video isn’t a source? I honestly did not know that. No one will mention the elephant in the room though that The Boston Globe is used as a RS to some, an not a care is given of that article I included. Do you realize all of this is because I say Jimmy Dore criticizes Republicans and you and others feel differently. Put that aside, do you have a problem with The Boston Globe source Jimmy Dore joked of Bush? I truly believed there was some semblance of fairness in this Wiki but see now sadly it doesn’t exist. Allow me to explain, and then I’m truly done here. It is a complete waste of time to try to say this is not political, an neither should I have to defend my political allegiance or lack there of. I am of neither party if that matters. Jimmy Dore criticizes The Democratic Party and members of which who are referred to as Democrats. Are we in agreement there? Yes? Of course we are because it’s allowed to remain in the article. Ok then I ask, who are those members? They are Democrats. Democrats are members of The Democratic Party. If you read what I wrote it was trying to add balance. I don’t say: ‘I am a Democratic’ if I was in that party. It sounds strange, no? So to add balance I wrote he also criticizes Republicans. A general group of politicians who are IN the Republican Party. Do you not see that? There IS a difference. You wrote in the Oct 2021 thread Vanilla, that if it means that much to me it’s included, source the info. Obviously it’s important to me, as I still after a month try to put that in the article. IT IS SOURCED FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE. In the BG article if you read it, He criticizes George Bush a member of The Republican Party and also a self identified Republican. I never once in this entire thread mentioned there was a conspiracy, you just now did. I simply wrote there are no valid reasons given for removal except pointing me to cryptic WP and answers like ‘Spin’ or ‘Incorrect Analysis’ by another editor. If they cared so much to remove it so quickly, give a reason you just torched someone’s work!

I am not using subscriber count as a thinly veiled anything. Are we not allowed only one edit on that page per 24 hours? I try to make it count. I tried to add in the lede that he criticizes both, AND put it in the body as you suggested, and now it’s been removed. Apparently this information for some reason is NOT allowed. I’m not making a baseless claim, crying conspiracy as you wrote. IT IS A FACT. It is not allowed. Balance will not be permitted on that persons page and people can speculate for themselves why. 
I have nothing else to say of your response until you understand my intentions are pure, I did what you literally suggested Vanilla, and still not allowed to bring fairness to the article. 
Last, you mention I unearthed a video from before Dore had a channel. For what possible reason could that even matter?? You said in Oct. find a source of Dore criticizing a Republican, I did that, now it’s ‘an old unearthed video’. Never mind that I included a reference to The Boston Globe of him saying he criticizes Bush (Republican) as well. What difference does it make anyway? Honestly.   Dec212012 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to believe that most of this is caused by miscommunication & you not yet knowing some of the idiosyncrasies of the relevant Wikipedia policies, but for the most part they've been explained to you by now so I don't know if there's much utility in trying again. Yes, YouTube videos are not a reliable source. The living person saying something can be a useful primary source to provide verifiability, but not notability, which is what we are concerned with. In other words, we're not saying that it's factually wrong to suggest that he's a critic of Republicans. When it's a matter of whether or not he's known for it, we need secondary sources which demonstrate notability.

You have brought up the boston.com article a few times, so I'd like to explain the issue with it (or more accurately, the issue with what you extrapolated from it). In short, the existence of an untimely article where Dore which mentions very briefly that he has his opinions on George Bush's foreign policy can't be used to say what you said it says. It'd be hard to even use it to say "In 2008, Dore was a critic of George W. Bush" because the article barely mentions Bush. That he criticized a particular Republican over a decade ago (before he was a content creator) cannot be used to say "Dore's content is noted for its consistency in equally criticizing both the Democrat and Republican parties." That would be original research. Or, as others have put it, your own original spin on it, or your own analysis of it. This article could be useful for other things mentioned in the Wiki page, such as his father being a "Reagan Democrat", but it certainly can't be used as evidence that Dore is known for his criticisms of the Republican Party as a whole. (and as for "Democrat Party" - well, just click on Democrat Party if you don't know by now that it's a pejorative.)

The problem, again, is that the leading paragraph of an article is intended to reflect the contents of the article. Changing the lede to include things that the article never mentions isn't ideal.

Just as a quick FYI, you are allowed more than one edit per 24 hours, but at most one of those edits should be reverting someone else's edit. The reason why I didn't assume good faith was that you have a tendency to reinstate all of your changes on the basis that other editors also reverted the updated subscriber count.

PS - manually adding tabs as you did can generate those gray rectangular blocks intended for displaying code, which is probably not what your intention was. You can add an indent to show that you are replying to someone by starting with : instead (and to reply to an indented message, simply add another : e.g. ::, :::, etc) Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I am gobsmacked this is on my Talk page not the articles Talk page where it should be, so others can weigh in. Who’s going to come to my page and have a look? No one, and the discussion should really have taken place there, but here we are. I admit here and now I am not as you wrote “yet knowing some of the idiosyncrasies of the relevant Wikipedia policies”. I am not, and admit such. That’s why I value others help in learning, and try to improve to do better. You apparently read the Boston Globe article, which I commend, and you admit that at one time Dore criticisms included Republicans, yet now claim that particular article can’t be used in that manner. “He’s not known for that” by whom? One person may ‘know’ him as funny, others may not. That could be debatable. Dore criticizes Republicans is not debatable. I proved he has done it with a reliable source. You choose not to believe it. He literally himself said he was ‘laying off George Bush jokes’ admitting his critique of a Republican. Would you like a source of Dore more recently criticizing a member of The Republican Party? Trump? His ‘being known’ for something is purely arbitrary. He has done it, FACT. Once, twice, one hundred times, and it seems no matter how many sources, how many videos he criticizes Republicans that information is not to be allowed in the article. PS I see the grey rectangular boxes and you are again correct, I did not mean for them to appear that way. I meant no harm, it was done as you wrote of not being very adept at Wiki. Moving forward, I will try to stop that from happening after I write this. I promise to look into what you wrote as to why that happens when I post here. I can not guarantee it won’t happen again but I’m trying. That is all I can say. Somehow, I believe anyone without an agenda can clearly see that I put nothing factually untrue, but instead now we are bogged down in minutia weather Dore saying he criticizes Bush is really in fact ‘Dore criticizes Republicans’. I also request the community to remove any YouTube videos from Wiki. If they are not a source, they should not be allowed on the platform. The video was in conjunction with the BG article. It was only meant to show context, and as you wrote a secondary source. I truly am sorry if there was a miscommunication. It was not my intent, but still the work I did, research, time etc. torched because now as I understand it, it’s old information. Outdated from 2008. I am smiling because as I wrote, how much difference does it make anyway? Dec212012 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Dore. Repurposing a section describing misinformation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic into a section which promotes anti-vaccine views and claims that the subject actually "debunked" misinformation is unacceptable. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that it's very suspicious that you reverted User:Calton to reinstate a version by User:Abomb7682, a user whose behavior, typing style, and even username has some striking similarities with yours. If you are using multiple accounts, please disclose this information on both accounts' user pages. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to check in Vanilla. Did you have a good Thanksgiving? I’m a spooky and suspicious one Vanilla, you better keep your eye on me here on Wikipedia. Who knows, I may say something you disagree with. I have one account, this one. Check the internet service provider, very easy to prove. I am hereby disclosing that. It must irk you though to no end that there’s more people out there who think like me, and for that I just smile. Especially when you write flowery reasons like “he’s not known for that”. Known by whom, you? I had high hopes for you Van. Your initial humor was a bit disarming I admit, but I see you now by your baseless claims for what you are. You are boring Vanilla. Your name says it all. Like a pesky mosquito, you return here on my talk page for some banter? Do me a favor, don’t bother to try and act civil and of a community spirit. Your words say otherwise. At least be honest, as I am. There in lies our difference though. Wikipedia is a collection of lies that are allowed to foster a partisan public narrative. Nothing more than a passing reference for a persons birthday. It’s quite clear really once your eyes are opened. I have nothing further to say to you, or about you after this accusation without an apology. I’ve been nothing but respectful to you in every way. I’ve done nothing wrong except include a reliable source and three sentences on a living persons page. You continue to write me here to engage in some sort of deflection that you have NO reason for why you removed my edit. Spare me the, ‘I’ve tried to explain it to your tiny mind’ gibberish. Does it bother you that others can do what you do? You have no special skill. You and your crew that respond in 8 minutes after an edit bully and intimidate others with threats of ‘you’re attacking me’ because I disagree and have proof backed by reliable sources. Any impartial editor can see that. I will continue to speak when, and as I see fit. My opinion is no less valuable than yours. Sorry Vanilla, not sorry. Strange how the edit you started this thread over was made by a different name, yet YOU respond here? Almost like you’re accusing me of what your doing. Having multiple accounts. Isn’t that ironic? You want to have me removed from this platform for having two accounts, do it. I will continue to grow corn, and watch the sunset. You however appear to be married to the Jimmy Dore page for whatever the reason. I only hope you are well paid for your efforts. Dec212012 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:npa and wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awww thank you Slater to suggest more reading material. If only you followed what you post Dec212012 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]