User talk:JustTheT

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. KidAd • SPEAK 03:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

New here

I got your message about what appears as an improper edit could you please point me to which edit this is in reference to? I will gladly apply the citations needed to provide evidence of any edit and assumed I had so it was simply an oversight. Thanks and sorry for trouble. JustTheT (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Edward Heath, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Robert Kagan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Uranium Site (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The source was plainly cited but to make matters even clearer I repeated the additional context and added an additional source. Really am confused why you claimed the source used for the rest of the statement was somehow not “reliable” for the additional content as they were found in the same article. JustTheT (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 the September 11 attacks. 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.

Doug Weller talk 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We’re the edits I made not in line with Wikipedia policy?

It’s entirely possible they were not but they were accurate and I provided sourcing and will certainly make the requested changes to make them compliant. JustTheT (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The Kyiv Independent, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Renat 03:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain how the US governments or NED own listing of those it funds can, apparently, not be considered an reliable source? JustTheT (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible to explain how the US governments own public list of recipients for its grants as provided isn’t a valid source please? JustTheT (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

--Renat 03:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided sourcing from reputable media outlets for the changes I made. Could you please be more precise in what you believe me to have missed since the sourcing was just fine for other comments made using it as source why would other statements contained in same article not be equally weighted as proper source material?

Renat you also alleged on another change I made correcting and incorrect statement and then properly citing several sources which you them claimed again without any explanation that I had not given sourcing. Not really sure how unilateral decisions on sourcing from universally held legitimate media outlets is not allowed when it apparently undermines your misinformed opinions as in these 2 cases but I would appreciate at least some explanation for your actions. JustTheT (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Dmitry Muratov, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Renat 20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Which of the sources I provided did not classify as “reliable” in this case? (There are literally hundreds which all correctly State and reprint verbatim what the Russian media regulators rules are in regards to and they are not about “must report what gov claims” as was incorrectly stated. The rules state that outlets must not knowingly print false claims about the conflict. Seems odd you would argue that the clearly counter factual claims made by the person writing the story about himself who provides no evidence for his claims would somehow be reputable but that the sources, (provided) using the regulations plain speech and analysis provided in multiple locations both by Western Media as well as Russian Media Regulator themselves is, according to you, “unreliable”?

it’s a demonstrable fact that needs no opinions to understand what the plainly worded text of both the law and the policy as publicly stated does Not in fact say what Muratov claimed it had. His statement is false and I provided sufficient, reliable, sources to support that claim. JustTheT (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me please how using the correct language found in the Russian Government Media Regulation itself and countless other sources, many of which I provided, is considered “original research”?

If using the direct and plainly worded regulation directly from the regulator is less valid than the self serving remarks of an individual, quoted without sourcing or evidence to back the claim itself up from someone who has a rather glaring conflict of interest then must assume accuracy is not the goal of this article or possibly not the goal of this edit. JustTheT (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rodney Joffe, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiHannibal What is the correct process to remove a statement clearly meant to bias the understanding of what was properly sourced and in itself had no sourcing to confirm its truth in first place?

A person could submit a sentence such as; “The Prosecute Did Not Allege John Doe Hadnt Sexually Abused xyz” in order to give the impression that was the Prosecutors job or even contextually part of a case in which it was solely used to create an artificial impression or an unjustified conflation of what’s being discussed.

Are there no rules regarding use of self serving statements not backed up by either evidence or sources which conflate the issue being addressed?

Again I would appreciate any thoughts regarding this. JustTheT (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence you removed was in the cited source. So I am not sure what you mean by "no sourcing to confirm its truth in first place". If the sourced sentence you removed really is what you called it, i.e. "self serving straw man claim for which there is neither evidence for or against in the indictment thus far. Clearly inserted to give the impression that this indictment disproves something it doesn’t even address", than perhaps you can find some reliable sources commenting along the same line of reasoning as yours that back up what your WP:original research says? Regarding self serving statements, see WP:PROMO, for example. WikiHannibal (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence was a quote from a person whose interest is clearly conflicted and who provided no evidence for the sourcing to be verified. What’s more the claim is directly disputed by the plain wording of the Russian Media Regulation he is claiming to be describing. I think you clearly understood this to begin with bc I can see you are a capable individual who edits regularly on the matter. Shouldn’t the actual facts outweigh an unsupported statement made by someone with a clear conflict and interest in miss labeling the actual regulation? JustTheT (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As I have already said above, you need to find some reliable sources commenting along the same line of reasoning as yours. It can be added as context to the article (eg. "Durham also did not allege..." but as authority XY says...). I n any case the best place to solve such issues is the talk page of the article, whre you can ask about other editors' opinions on a possible removal and your reasons for it. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification and help, thanks. JustTheT (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources, synthesis, neutrality, and Mark Bernstein

Hi, JustTheT. I've reverted your edit to Mark Bernstein (University of Michigan). I've done so for three reasons:

1. It's not entirely clear to me, from looking at the sources, that they support the statement Bernstein has voted for each and every tuition increase since he was elected by campaigning on the cost of college being too high for students.
2. Even if they do, it's not acceptable to make a claim based on cobbling together what different sources say. We call that synthesis. It matters not just what reliable sources say, but also how they present it. If no reliable sources are looking at this from the a point of view of "he campaigned one way but voted another way", that's a good sign that Wikipedia shouldn't either, even if it happens to be true. This helps us avoid editorialization.
3. On that note, the tone of your addition wasn't neutral. It's important that all content on Wikipedia be written from a neutral point of view. The kind of "gotcha" statement that you added may fly in campaign ads, and in some quarters of the newsmedia, but we write objective facts, and we don't juxtapose things in a way geared to make someone look bad. This ties back to point 1, because if the sources make a big deal about a potential hypocrisy, then maybe we can mention it that way, but we can't draw original conclusions of hypocrisy without straying into non-neutral territory.

I hope all of that makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions. You can use the template {{ping|Tamzin}} to get my attention, although I'll try to keep an eye on this page regardless. :) Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No you make some sense In your reasoning although your second point negates your first (apparently knowingly) but I again don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other just found that the lack of context implied a contradiction to reality. I will re-edit the statement that he has voted for every single tuition increase since being elected and add sourcing for each and every year without editorializing (bc I agree it does read that way in my edit) by putting it together with his stated reason for running for the position. I will simply list and source that sequentially without added editorial emphasis. I do appreciate the thoughtful and importantly the clear reasonings behind your decisions as they are not often provided. Let me know if you have any further objections and I’ll make sure to discuss it further so you aren’t having to waste time un-editing my edits. JustTheT (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also that he has voted every year for tuition increases is an objective demonstrable fact as each regents Vote is publicly stated. I would also argue it’s clearly important context especially when given his insistence that he was running because something must be done about the rising costs of education (i believe I provided sufficient sources but there are literally dozens so I assume the context will be sufficiently supportable using them)

As I said I agree that in the way I wrote the edit it did carry a perception of judgement I should leave to the reader to conclude or not from the available context itself.

Thanks JustTheT (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello JustTheT! Your additions to Jim_Pattison 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. 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.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• 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 either 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.
• 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 described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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) 15:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So I simply need to put the sentence used in Quotation marks?

The rest of the list does not seem to apply since the reality is it’s simply a single sentence and sourced appropriately.

If you disagree please let me know and I will gladly make the adjustments or argument. Thanks JustTheT (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't put it in quotation marks. Quotations should only be used when there's no alternative. In this case, the content needs to be written in your own words, not quoted. It's not a single sentence, it's two sentences, 46 words— Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Important notice: biographies of living persons

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Carole Cadwalladr, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi - making personal attacks here is prohibited. This is covered at WP:PA, with supplemental guidance at WP:AGF. Accusing people of making intentionally false attempt to obfuscate facts would be to accuse them of acting bad faith, which is interpreted as a personal attack unless it is accompanied by evidence, and made in an appropriate location. Please read through the guidance in those links, and refrain from making comments like that in edit summaries or on talk pages. Thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Not sure who the person is I supposedly “attacked”, do you have a name of that “personally attacked” individual?

2. To be clear. Are you making the claim that the BBC is not UK funded, UK directed state media who has throughout its existence been editorial controlled by UK parliament through its UK government selected executives?

Really not sure why anyone would insist on removing accurately cited/sourced/edited neutral facts In order to make the entry less accurate/factual/neutral. Should a state funded/directed media outlet be allowed to claim its own statement as to its “editorial independence” even when that statement is at odd with the multitude of facts with contradict its claims with actual concrete examples?

Even if Uk government had only taken over editorial independence/control a single time like between 1988-1994 (which is not the case as it’s done so on many occasions) then the facts outweigh the self serving claim made by the organization and gov which controls it itself. Also the reality that the charter lays out the basis for which the UK government ALLOWS the BBC to operate at all and must renew those same conditions at end of each period while allowing than any changes must be agreed upon by the UK gov. This isn’t a controversial fact, it’s historical fact as well as current fact.

I prefer that you instead delay to me what you feel is incorrect or unsupported so I can provide as many sources to undermine this reality. There is no shortages of verifiable objective neutral evidence and sources to establish the facts regarding this. JustTheT (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, on your point '1'. You did not specify the person or people you were accusing of editing in bad faith, but the article's history can be viewed here, so it would be a trivial matter to find out who has been reverting your changes - presumably it's them who you are making accusations against. Look, I'm not some newb who doesn't know how things work here, and I'm not a shrinking violet who cries 'personal attack' as soon as debate gets animated - I'm a site administrator, advising you that your conduct has been problematic. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, but your account will ultimately be blocked from editing if you insist on talking about others' actions in terms like that.

On your point 2, I have not seen reliable sources that describe the BBC in the terms that you do. If such sources exist, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining the changes that you think are necessary and the sources that you feel support them. Other editors will consider your proposals, and if a consensus forms for the changes you want to make, the article can be changed. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Girth you once again made an implication with absolutely no evidence which you yourself admit claiming you “presumed” then went on to personally threaten me In about as clear and disingenuous a way as possible. I believe we need to invite an objective editor who isn’t going to invent claims based on his own clearly erroneous presumptions while refusing to provide any evidence to back up his claims at same time threatening the person he is attacking and wrongly accusing. My edits have sourcing and are factual, no presumption required (nor threats for that matter) JustTheT (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The simple and undeniable facts are that the BBC is state funded/controlled media. JustTheT (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Leopoldo Lopez

Lopez is a BLP, and I see that Sangdeboeuf has already notified you above, on July 12 of this year, of the discretions in place for BLPs. I see that Sideswipe9th also raised this with you on July 17. You also have recent warnings on this talk page from Girth Summit and Diannaa.

I have just removed a highly POV edit you made to a BLP, where you misrepresented a source to state that Lopez had "actively advocating to remove the democratically elected government in a coup", among other POV and OR insertions. The source does not say that Lopez "advocated ... for a coup" ... it says that "having been at the forefront of demonstrators in April 2002 that led to the coup". Please edit more carefully; it is beginning to look like WP:NOTHERE applies to your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking further back on your talk page, I see that BLP issues were also raised by Neveselbert and Renat and you were given an earlier DS alert by Doug Weller. In fact, I see at least ten warnings and notices on your talk page about your editing, most often related to careless use of sources in BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And, according to this IP you did the same at Carlos Vecchio, also a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And these edits contain cut-and-paste copyvio as well as original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the main reasons Lopez was criticized for by fellow opposition. You know what, never mind. What’s clear is accuracy is not what Wikipedia is after and there is no benefit in continually pushing back against state backed funds/groups whose purpose is to ensure Wikipedias articles reflect their constructed reality not the plainly and freely available facts based on plainly worded stories backed by actual evidence. Now I see precisely why people have stopped even trying to play a positive role in keeping Wikipedia free from Government or Corporate control. Well done 👍🏻 JustTheT (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The main problem is that the content you claimed was in the Lopez sources is not. And the reason it is not is that you are mightily confusing events from 2002 to 2004 with events from 2019, where Lopez was criticized by fellow opposition. He most certainly was not in the recall referendum events from 2004, nor did he advocate then for a coup as your unsourced addition stated.

That's Lopez only. Which doesn't explain your POV edits at all the other BLPs listed in this section, and where all your edits similarly did not reflect the sources, and were highly POV.

I noticed that most of the editors who pointed out your past breaches of policy and guideline here on your talk never came back to explain to you or answer your questions. So I'm doing that. Once. In spite of you lodging a personal attack above, implying I'm a paid gov't shill. That kind of attack won't help get you unblocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 05:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I took a moment to review your recent contributions at Richard Berman (lawyer), which were unsourced, non-neutral and obvious violations of the WP:BLP policy. After so many warnings, I can see no alternative to a block; I've made it time-limited, and urge you to take time to actually read the BLP policy, as well as WP:V. If you continue in this vein after the block expires, the next violation will likely result in an indefinite block. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit here's another cut-and-paste copyvio, also at a BLP, if you might have time to revdel? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Never mind Moneytrees got it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, did what claims were not sourced?

Every single statement I have edited has provided sourcing and has offered the statement in same neutrality given in the provided sourcing.

Could you please list examples of the statements you claim werent sourced and werent “neutral”? JustTheT (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the list posted in the section just above this, with this link as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll add to SandyGeorgia's comments - none of the content you added to Richard Berman (lawyer) was supported by any of the sources in the article, and you added no new sources. The content you added also included accusations of wrongdoing, such as bullying, which isn't acceptable. If a court or tribunal has found someone guilty of something, we can include that fact; if there have been widely reported accusations of wrongdoing, but no conviction, then we can include information about those accusations, but we need to explain clearly who has made them. In any event, such content needs to be supported by top-quality sources. There are numerous other examples of you adding content that is either supported by dubious sources, or simply not supported by any sources, in multiple articles you have edited. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC being another example. It's not state funded, users pay a licence free. Like Amazon Prime in a sense. It is the national broadcasting system but is independent. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 00:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You've been warned already about our copyright policies, and our WP:BLP policy. Having just reviewed some of your recent contributions, I have found multiple instances of verbatim copying from sources, and also unsourced defamation of living people. I believe that you are here not to contribute to our project, but to attack public figures who you disapprove of, and that you have no interest in abiding by our copyright policies. Someone with such a combination of attitudes is not well-suited to contributing here.  Girth Summit _(blether) 00:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)