User talk:Mr Ernie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

?

Didn't understand this. There are different views on this article, obviously. An admin will eventually come and assess the consensus, and hopefully will this time address the BLP issues in their close. That close may be challenged and if so it will be upheld or reversed by the community of admins. Through that process we will arrive a WP:CONSENSUS. It isn't pretty to get there, but we'll get there! Or you don't think so, really? Real question, if you want to answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the question User:Jytdog. I don't think that the community consensus approach was working on that article. Even though it isn't a majority vote, it looked like a clear majority and consensus were against the first deletion attempt, supportive of the Wikileaks text, and against the second deletion attempt. I do not believe that every editor was there in good faith to accept the consensus and improve the article, so I deemed myself no longer able to edit there. The main notable thing about the whole issue is the insinuation / implication that there is more to his murder. If these mentions are not allowable, there is no need for that article. It's definitely a complicated issue, with clear parallels to the current election mess and finger pointing and accusations and what not, so I am glad that experienced editors like you are there to help sort it out. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for replying! i wasn't sure how upset you were. Yeah I find editing about politics in WP to be awful and I generally avoid it. I only got involved in this one b/c it pushes my buttons. But they are useful, to see how the community (not just the political advocates) handle things - i have learned from them. this AfD was instructive for me; the article was deleted so you can't see it. but when I first saw the title i thought "no way" but i went and looked at and saw that the phrase had a use going back 30 years, and many many citations. so i !voted keep. as i saw what others were saying, i changed my vote. Then following the logic there, I did this, which succeeded. so that was interesting. I do believe we will get there on the Rich article.. it is just that making the sausage is not pretty. so.. please don't be discouraged.... Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A road to nowhere

We haven't met, but I've seen your excellent participation in the the various discussions about the "controversy" content. Sadly, it appears the editor is never going to stop his very disruptive obstructionism. He just came off a 72-hour block a week ago for doing the same thing, not to mention his two recent blocks before that. So, putting the content issue aside, I think the only way to move forward is for someone to report his highly inappropriate behavior to ANI. I am not familiar with the process, so I think you or someone else should pursue it. Tracescoops (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer not to do that. I have attempted to engage one last with time ParkH.Davis on his user page. If his behavior doesn't turn around, I will take the appropriate measures (but judging by his commitment to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on his user page, I fear you may be correct that ANI is our only choice). Mr Ernie (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I commend your patience. However, as his response to you indicates, he is not going to budge. Also, I'm not sure if you've seen this. Tracescoops (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume you've seen this. His editing privileges need to be permanently removed. Tracescoops (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed it came to this. Wikipedia needs passionate editors like ParkH.Davis, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Passion is great, but when that passion is solely used for an improper motive it can be very harmful. Unfortunately, he refused to accept that Wikipedia isn't the place to advance personal crusades. Blanking the article 11 times is not passion. It's vandalism. Tracescoops (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of this thread on ParkH.Davis's page, where he and another editor planned the addition of content about the Manning HGH allegations into two other articles, which was done. Note the thread's title. Tracescoops (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tracescoops: Sigh. I just read those sections he linked and they are awful. They are poorly written, contradictory, and contain a bunch of BLP violations...I'll try to start cleaning them up later. It's basically worse than something you would expect on TMZ. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and exactly! Tracescoops (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning proposal and straw poll

This is to make you aware of this discussion regarding the "royal family" content dispute at Peyton Manning, where you recently edited or commented on the talk page. Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome. Tracescoops (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Tracescoops thanks for the heads up. I don't have a lot of time to edit for the next few days, but it appears as if discussions are proceeding. I'll check back in next week or so. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's old news now. Consensus was reached a few nights ago. Tracescoops (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tracescoops Ah ok sorry about that - I wasn't able to edit this weekend. You guys have done a great job on the Manning article. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle, etc.

Excuse me, but it's crystal clear that neither Winkelvi nor DHeyward (especially the latter) is trying to "work with" anyone. Keri noted that they have repeatedly been engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about reliable sources provided, while the latter especially has engaged in massive amounts of false claims that don't even count as WP:OR while filibustering. This is beyond frustrating - I head out to have a nice afternoon with my girlfriend, and I come back to have to wade through a mass of sockpuppetry and some of the most blatant evidence of WP:CANVAS that could ever be seen. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And now Winkelvi is up to this nonsense. This is ridiculous. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Sorry, but your comment got caught up in this effort to deny a blatant troll account created to troll. If you take offense I'll self-revert, but I didn't figure your response would make much sense by itself. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood Thanks for taking care of that. I probably should have done the same thing, but I guess I was way over assuming good faith. I have no issues with the removal of my comment along with the troll's. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Witch trial

I agree completely with your characterization of the "case" against Michael Hardy as a repeat of the Salem Witch Trials (although obviously with much less serious consequences). There is no evidence at all against him. The evidence in the Salem Witch Trials consisted literally of hallucinations of a few children involving the accused (they called it "spectral evidence"). There is no valid reason for any of these people accusing Hardy to have any animosity towards him. So they must be hallucinating bad things about him.

One of the accusers raised the issue of Hardy's anonymous edits (apparently amounting to about half of his edits in recent years). But a person really needs to be hallucinating bad things about Hardy to see a problem here. If these tens of thousands of anonymous edits were bad, they would certainly be detected (and probably traced back to him). Jrheller1 (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Politifact RSN

Hey, I was just re-reading my response to you at the RSN thread linked in the title here, and I wanted to say that it reads more sarcastic than I meant it. I wasn't trying to mock you for using a meme (after all, memes can be accurate). I was just pointing out that the meme doesn't evince its claims, but uses implications and sarcasm to argue its case. Sorry if it came across as a little condescending, I didn't mean it that way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:MjolnirPants thanks for the note. It was profoundly stupid of me to fall for that meme and use it as any sort of justification. I guess it deserved to be mocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was that stupid... As I mentioned on the Trump talk page, fact checking sites are heavily criticized from the political right as having a bias. To give a hypothetical example: If I kept being exposed to the claim that Neil Degrasse Tyson was unfairly promoting Loop quantum gravity over String theory in my Facebook news feed, but never paid much attention to it until one day I got my interest pinged by an RfC here: Does NDT support LQG? So I go look something up, and the first thing I find is a graphic mocking NDT for support LQG. At that point, thinking the graphic is accurate is really not an unreasonable position. It's certainly not stupid. That's why I posted to your talk page to begin with; because I think the way I phrased my post was too ambiguously sarcastic, and it looked more like mockery than it should, all things considered. So don't feel bad. It was an honest mistake, no matter how silly it may seem in retrospect. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

ANI

Sorry, I've come here as I don't want the comedy show at ANI disrupted for the popcorn munchers; hope you don't mind. I just wondered if you could you provide me with any diffs where I've responded to a good faith edit, by someone who's added an infobox, with any of the quotes you've used at ANI? I'm struggling to find them. Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If your edit count was as low as mine I'd take a look, but I've got better things to do than dig through your contribs. Pressing at the moment is a haircut. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

For that read: "I can't, sorry, because you haven't". Cassianto^Talk 19:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and its talk pages including any subpages, except to respond to a request for arbitration enforcement against yourself.

You have been sanctioned for casting aspersions against others, as discussed in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  19:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Observation

Just a thought. You recently appealed a sanction that you received apparently over something to do with me. You left a message on my talk about your appeal. I did not support your appeal but neither did I, as many people here do, show up to agitate against it. I'm assuming your appeal was granted since you've become quite active in the relevant topic area. However, it seems like you've chosen to embroil yourself in the controversy and are slowly falling back into old patterns. You might want to step back for awhile. Continue to discuss content and issues but refrain from participating in drama or making comments about other editors. Best of luck.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll caution you to also refrain from making comments about other editors. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The main problem seems to stem from the fact that I don't think it's a BLP violation to note the conspiracy theory regarding Seth Rich. I don't personally think it is true, quite the opposite actually, but our article didn't have any mention of it until recently. We both seem to feel quite strongly about our opinions, and I appreciate that you're willing to go to bat for how you think it should be. Please understand this about me also. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And Ernie, you know I expressed the same good faith to you at the time of your appeal and you know that I previously warned you on an article talk page (then removed when you read and objected to the location of the warning.) Seeing your recent behaviour, I can't imagine how you expect to remain at large. You can do other stuff and leave the nasty BS to someone else for a while. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would show up. Look if you have concerns about my behavior then please let me know with diffs. I certainly appreciate the good faith, Lord knows we all need it! This latest business with ANI and the block is certainly unpleasant, and I would advocate just as hard for you guys had either of you been the one blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your ban was lifted on the expectation that you wouldn't revert to the same disruptive behaviour. It's too bad to see the same old. I hope you'll reflect. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You were warned in that same AE. Please provide diffs of this "disruptive behaviour" or take your bad faith somewhere else than my talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't expect me ever again to assist you when you come to me for help. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I'm sorry to hear that's how you want to proceed. Your first interaction with me was to template me. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lot of other things too. Few of them are nice, as you have discovered. The one thing Wikipedia is not is unpredictable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mr Ernie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mr Ernie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

NPA

I'm assuming you're the IP who's been removing the "personal attack" - Either way people are entitled to their opinions, If you have an issue with it you either go to ANI or you grow up and move on.
BTW you may want to stop edit warring[1][2] as it'll only lead one way, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing these personal attacks. Don't worry about the reply by Davey2010, repeated removals of such personal attacks will not get you blocked, only the ones reinserting them, per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Davey2010. I am not the IP who removed the personal attack. Just because you disagree with what the IP and I have done does not mean you should bring these bad faith accusations to my talk page. Frankly I don't understand nor appreciate your insinuation to me that I should "grow up and move on." Thank you Fram for the support. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you wasn't the IP then I sincerely apologise for accusing you - Seemed a bit weird for an IP to revert and then you come along and revert aswell.... Obviously put 2+2 together & came up with 5!, Anyway my apologies, happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Davey2010. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New RfC at Plummer v. State

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ivanvector Neutral Section

FYI, either User:UNSC_Luke_1021's comment or your reply to their comment may be registering the neutral vote with the RfA bot. --JustBerry (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Pinging Lourdes, as xe striked through the original neutral vote. --JustBerry (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi Mr Ernie,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Threat of physical violence"

That wasn't a threat. It was a summation of what I felt was the outcome of that series of events: Mainly the editor in question mouthed off and tried to use Wikipedia for something other than it's intended use, and thus had their ability to edit Wikipedia removed. Perhaps I should have put quotation marks around it, but it was not at all a threat of violence. Next time talk to me instead of mindlessly reverting. --Tarage (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: thanks for the note and explanation. My apologies for mischaracterizing your comment. At any rate it didn’t really add any much to that discussion, which is past due for a close. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring "one-way IBANs don't work" comments

I felt that your question why should we discount members of the community who feel that 1 way I-Bans do not work or are not effective? probably needed a more direct answer than SoV gave it. Simply put, the onus is on such users to get the banning policy changed so as to place a blanket prohibition on one-way IBANs, which they have not done. Arguing that one-way IBANs should not be a thing even though they currently are is a matter for WT:BAN or WP:VPP, not whatever one-way IBAN discussion is currently at ANI.

And for what it's worth, per my earlier comments on the recent discussion, I would probably support a blanket prohibition on new one-way IBANs (as opposed to retroactively dissolving all the ones that are already in place, and to allowi for the exception of modified two-way bans where one-way disruption continued after the ban was put in place).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mr Ernie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness...

...it's time to deflate that "kangaroo court" balloon, lest we think it's a serious matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Very true - thank you for that perspective. It's easy to get carried away and reminders like that are often helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But you have a good point, and I'll stay away--or at least I'll try, haha. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Drmies At this point it is probably smart for me to as well. I get the feeling that I'm not going to change anyone's mind ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary

I was referring to my comment as unhelpful, not your question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I’ll amend my comment. Can you help me understand how the community can restrict something the TOU explicitly permits? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My answer is still "easily". The TOU is what the server owner finds acceptable - policy and guidelines are what the editing community finds acceptable, and there's no reason it can't be more restrictive. It's going the other direction that's problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. User:TonyBallioni and User:Ajraddatz also weighed in here and here. Thanks to all for providing some input. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

Please stop your edit-warring [3][4] and explain your specific concerns about this particular information, rather than resorting to abstract generalities like "undue", "notnews" (a large number of citation in this articles are to news articles) etc.

None of the four criteria in WP:BLPREMOVE apply to this material, it has been covered in numerous reliable sources. I see your latest deletion was just undone by someone else. Please think twice before considering to resume your edit war.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. I’ve explained my concerns regarding BLP and NOTNEWS. Why isn’t anyone responding on the talk page? Kavanaugh and the only other witness have completely denied this occurred, there’s no way to investigate it, and the accuser’s memory regarding other parts of the story is spotty. What should we do? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't a template (I know you're a regular ;).

I have responded on the article talk page too. As for what we should do, I think we should follow reliable sources, and also give less weight to mere opinions/punditry and more to the factual statements in the case. Kavanaugh's denial of this specific incident falls in the latter category and sounds relevant too, feel free to add it. In general, please keep in mind that this is not about a criminal conviction or gossip about a minor celebrity, but about a personnel decision that is regularly considered one of the most important and most scrutinized in the United States, which is why the coverage in RS (and hence BLP considerations) may be different. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Arb noticeboard

Mr Ernie, I appreciate the ping, but what I would appreciate even more is a note on Bbb's talk page, or maybe a private message. I tell you again, being primarily involved with CU/SPI is a very ungrateful task which requires both technical expertise and administrative judgment (plus, you typically only get to see the worst of Wikipedia: it's very depressing). Criticizing someone like Bbb unjustly on a public board is really a slap in the face; if Bbb were to stop providing us this service we would all be worse off. Most CUs and SPI clerks remember how the workload doubled or tripled when Bbb took some time off last year or so, and how difficult that made things. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comment. I can't imagine the type of abuse CU's must deal with. I certainly shouldn't have added to it. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies, thanks for the kind words. Mr Ernie, thanks for the apology.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A clarification

I notice that you reverted my restoration (with modifications) of long-standing content (and your revert has been reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof), and I thought you deserved to know my thinking. Your edit summary read: "Undid revision 892227495 by BullRangifer (talk) RFC under way on talk, also the Attorney General announced that DOJ is investigating this - we don't know the results of that investigation yet."

The RFCs have no bearing on that edit as our content is based on what RS currently say, not what they might say in the future. The lead must still reflect what the body of the article is about. If future investigations reveal anything of relevance and RS comment on it, as they no doubt will, we will certainly update the article to reflect that. I have seen articles change quite a bit because of such developments. Maybe that will happen here. We just need to be patient.

BTW, I appreciate your comments about music. As I child I took piano and accordian lessons, but stopped when I was about 13. Now, as I put it, I'm very musical: I play the radio, CD player, and YouTube. I still love music of many types, and sometimes I wish I still played the piano. My wife (who plays the piano, organ, and guitar) and I like to watch music programs like American Idol. I have great admiration for talented people, and find it fascinating to see young talent develop. Have you ever recorded anything? Tell me more about your musical tastes and prowess. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thanks for the comment. I think I'm going to take a step back from that topic area, as I am not sure that my comments are making any progress.

I'm generally a fan of blues-rock guitarists, some favorites being Duane Allman, Steve Gaines, Allen Collins, SRV, etc. When I first started playing I learned the At Fillmore East album, and think that's generally the zenith of rock music originality and creativity (even if a couple of the songs were covers). I can't believe how talented those young guys were. I think their approach to race relations in that era was also quite inspirational - it was always about the music to them.

These days I have found some modern, younger guitar players who took that style and made it feel fresh, like J.D. Simo, Marcus King (The Marcus King Band), and Joe Bonamassa. I play the piano, but not as well as the guitar. I've never recorded anything, only playing with friends for fun and personal enjoyment. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe Bonamassa, Derrek Trucks, Dusty Hill, and Billy Gibons doing a tribute to Fredie King. [5] O3000 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I really like Bonamassa and the Trucks Band. Great music. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

May be of interest to you

Given your comment here (which has been at the back of my mind)[6], you might find it of interest that Mueller did actually criticize Barr's summary[7], and fact-checkers/RS have described Barr's summary as deceptive/"false"[8][9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, thanks for sharing, I do find that interesting. I find it interesting because everybody sees something in there that they want to see. "Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials." That Politifact piece you linked seems to be a piece entirely based on the author's opinion of what the word "fully" means. The Trump administration never applied executive privilege, and the ONLY thing that didn't agree to was Trump testifying in person, which of course Trump was perfectly within his rights to not agree to. This whole thing is ridiculous. Barr's testimony yesterday revealed what he and his staff were thinking. The Democrats had their chance, with some very capable Senators on that committee, to uncover any of Barr's misdeeds, but there was simply nothing there. If you think Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report, no problem, you can read almost the entire Mueller report yourself. No evidence of collusion or coordination, and no charges on Obstruction. Graham was right to bring up the Clinton team actions in response to her investigations - an IT staffer asking redditors how to selectively edit email histories, destroying information with Bleachbit, and beating up telephones with hammers. Can you imagine if the Trump campaign did that? It's long past time for this all to be over. I don't really care anymore about how these articles look, and I don't really plan to participate in this topic again. Anyways, thanks again for sharing, and good luck editing those articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We are dealing with a new kind of news media, Mr Ernie - don'cha miss the good ole days when there was far more emphasis placed on accuracy and integrity than sensationalism and retractions? Things are about to get busy, but don't hold your breath for much coverage. It's best to just sit and wait, and avoid the hostile or a better term may be "highly defensive" environment that dominates the AP2 topic area. It's sad when one kind of conspiracy theory takes precedence over another that was proven/is being proven to no longer be a theory. Ha! And WP articles are not supposed to show a partisan slant. When researching RS that are being cited in our articles, I came across this interesting article. smh ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Withhold military aid"

Hi Mr Ernie. I'm not sure it belongs in that BLP so I thought I'd link a source here instead. [10] SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, thank you for that source. Very interesting article. But is it not SYNTH to say Trump withheld that aid in order to force an investigation into Biden? Nobody has explicitly proven that was the case or linked them directly, and Trump released the aid anyways a little after the call, and in that article is just an opinion of a Democratic Senator. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The reports point to the White House transcript of the call. Ukrainian says, I am ready for more weapons. Trump says "Well I need a favor from you, though..." and then Trump starts talking about how the U's can find various campaign dirt on the Democrats. I think it's widely reported in the mainstream media. I only chose The Hill because they have been solidly in Trump's corner on most things. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"Digging in"

Mr Ernie, thank you for your input but I haven't been reading or replying to the thread at all, except for dealing with the bludgeoning and obvious sock puppetry of 86.134.75.243. Besides the comment you replied to, the discussion on my talk page (which I haven't had a chance to reply to yet) is the only place where I will officially comment on the matter.

If 86.134.75.243 continues to filibuster and bludgeon the thread, I'm requesting that they be blocked until closure. DarkKnight2149 06:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert on User talk:Eric Corbett

Hmm, ok. I thought I was actually doing something relatively nice by restoring Eric's user page. But, I guess I'll just always be an asshole admin in your eyes. Oh well. Take care. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong, thanks for dropping a note. I thought that action better left to someone uninvolved regarding Eric. I don't think you're an asshole, just maybe a bit too involved. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think I should also undo my edit to User:Eric Corbett? ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 16:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Scottywong: I'd say, it was the right edit, whoever made it, and now there's a chance for everyone to move on. Whereas you reverting, although with the best of intentions, might just open it up all over again. Unless, for the optics, you want to undo yourself and I'll re-do it; I don't think I'm involved in that discussion. Bt I don't think it's an issue tbh ——SN54129 16:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't plan on actually reverting, I just wanted to see how far Mr Ernie would go down this surreal line of reasoning. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm done talking about this issue. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Me too. If you can resist the urge to be the talk page police in the future, maybe we'll be lucky enough to never have to talk to each other ever again. Seriously though, leave my talk page comments alone. It's rude. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What a pleasure interacting with you. I’ll leave you to your petty grudge. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks

MrErnie, please stop accusing me of making false statements. Those are gross personal attacks. You should know by now that I have RS backing for my assertions. Instead of assuming I'm ignorant or making false statements, politely ask me what I mean and my sources. Feel free to use my talk page, since such discussions are often disruptive on the article's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

Mr Ernie, it seems like you just reflexively reverted my edit without bothering to read the source. This edit by you restored blatantly false information into an article about two living people. Please self-revert and be more careful in the future. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I nearly fell off my horse when I saw that revert on my cellphone, Mr. Ernie. I would have reverted it myself, but I figured it was just an oversight and hoped you would do so yourself. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you on your phone while riding a horse? Regardless, I'm not following either of you. I thought the wording was unwieldy, and that if the report didn't state Biden's name, why would a record of it? Nevertheless, I restored some of the wording that MrX added. Thank you for the visit. Also, I had read that article hours ago, before KB added links to it. I had a mind to do it myself, but some things are more important. I live in the future compared to y'all, and get the news earlier. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It was unwieldy because that the best way to paraphrase the source without inventing facts. The word "confirmed" that now appears in the article is not really a faithful representation of the source, which says "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source.". Obtaining confirmation from a source is not necessarily the same as confirming it yourself. - MrX 🖋 18:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You don’t think my second, clarifying edit added the proper nuance per the source? That wording is how I understood the NPR piece. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, you have done it again. In this edit you state that Biden "groped" the other women who have complained about him and that he assaulted them. They have made no such accusation. You need to strike that pronto. Please be more careful. Another editor has already come to the talk page to point out your misstatement. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, If someone touched my daughter in a suggestively sexual manner against her will I would know exactly what that is. Thanks again for your visit. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, the complaints you referenced are about hair sniffing etc. This is a serious matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if an older, very powerful man sniffed my daughter’s hair it would make me very upset. I’m not sure why you are choosing to defend that behavior but you can do what you want. I don’t want to continue talking about this with you, as it makes me very uncomfortable. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I find your comments and justification here very perverted, and would ask you don’t repeat that on my talk page. “Hair sniffing.” Disgusting. We are talking about young women and children. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, Ernie, we are talking about what our sources say and we are talking about BLP policy and that's all. You had no basis to say what you did, and another editor called you out on it. Now I'm disappointed you are pressing your personal opinions instead of correcting your error. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I was not "calling him out", I was just trying to help point out the legal definition; that doesn't mean Mr. Ernie isn't otherwise correct.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fake News Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Annual refresher

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee why are you posting this on my talk page? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no presumption that you are doing anything wrong, however if you do violate a restriction this alert needs to be given before you can be sanctioned. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's one practical reason; it's also to make sure people do know, and it is hardly disruptive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm already aware of this, as I've commented at ARCA about it. It's disruptive that Coffee didn't do any background and slapped this template on many users. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine then, you can just ignore the message.... Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I would like Coffee to answer the question about why he didn't do any research before posting a disruptive template to my talk page. Please do not post here again regarding this topic, as your answers are unhelpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I find the templates are the pause that refreshes -- an opportunity to take quiet time to reflect on the nature of disruption and to refresh our non-disruptive spirits. Ernie I would be honored if you would template me with the annual notice. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is not intended in any form to state you've done anything disruptive, this is merely because it is required that editors who edit in this topic area (as you have been) be made aware (or alerted to) the existing sanctions in the area. It is just to ensure you haven't forgotten, even if you hadn't. I checked all applicable logs and it appears it had been around 12 months since your last notification about, or AE comment on, this topic area. Please don't take this as something bad. I've even posted it on administrator's talkpages, since everyone isn't always aware or paying attention to the fact that these sanctions exist. It's just meant to ensure you have all the info you need before continuing to edit in the area. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee I commented on the clarification request here. Additionally I was sanctioned in this topic area less than 12 months ago (see my talk page archive. Lastly, I successfully appealed this sanction less than 12 months ago. Therefore I'm triple aware of the DS ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I somehow missed the appeal date being so much later than the February date. My apologies. I didn't intend to just blast this on your page if there was already a record of your awareness. Please understand this action wasn't done in malice. I just wanted to be sure you knew of them so you didn't run into any trouble. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The ARCA area isn't something the editnotice warns us to check before placing these alerts (there are 4 links: your talk history, your edit filter history, your edits at AE via a search, and a tools search of the same thing). That's something we should probably fix sometime soon to ensure this doesn't happen. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MrClog (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 21:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG, thanks for the notification. I'm not sure I have much to add there. There's a fundamental disagreement about the scope of the article. I think the better approach may be to hold a comprehensive RFC on what the scope should be - every interaction between Trump and Russia or strictly those interactions that took place starting at some point, perhaps when Trump announced his candidacy. Anyways, thanks for trying to find common ground. I'm not at a place where I will be able to participate effectively in Wikipedia at the moment. I'm also quite frustrated with the Trump articles, and am trying to avoid them. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tghreats

You need to look up the word 'threat' in a dictionary. My mission for years has been to get RfA cleaned up and free of nonsense and drama. I am politely asking you not to take my comments out of context, and to remain civil. What I can't abide are disingenuous comments even if some believe that baiting admins is fair sport. As you are already aware, I do not do blocks for incivility - be content that I as an admin as do not have a sensitive trigger finger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

Please see talk if you would like to comment about the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

RFA

I just wanted to reach out to you and apologize if my blatant over-the-top and silly response made you feel upset or put-down because of the vote you initially added. I was only trying to add humor to the discussion, and I meant absolutely no ill will toward you personally in any way. While I do resort to using ridiculous and silliness once in a great while in my responses and comments, I never do so in order to hurtful or negative toward others. Just because we disagree over something doesn't mean that we can't be cool with one another and shake hands, wish each other a great day, and hope that they're doing well - and I absolutely wish that of you. My user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me there any time you need anything, and I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Best wishes - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, no worries I didn't take any offense from your message - I just didn't understand it. Thanks for reaching out. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was the least I could do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. And while I wouldn't have asked, that thought crossed my mind for that username. It was a question worth asking. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DS alert. Use extreme caution at the Trump-Russia dossier article

Don't make dubious and controversial edits. Work it out on the talk page first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you are required to check that Ive gotten that alert within the last year. As you can clearly see up on my talk, I have. This post is harassment. You need to remove it immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No harassment intended. It's gone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, there is no requirement to seek consensus before controversial edits. I quote your edit summary - "This article is under strong DS constrictions, so seek a consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits." Bull - I consider you an editing friend, but this is an abuse of the process, and is not true. There is no such requirement to seek a consensus on the talk page before making an edit. The applicable DS are 1RR and consensus required (after you have been reverted). WP:BOLD is still the law of the land. Please do not use talk page alerts or edit summaries to imply I am running afoul of DS. That is not welcome, and not right. I know you care a lot about the dossier page, and I know the effort you've put into it (and I thank you for it). But the information coming from the IG report and probably the Durham investigation are showing that the mainstream narrative of that page is simply false.

When you attempt to template someone, there's a filter that asks if you checked if I received an alert - did you see that and did you check? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot the template code, so copied an alert from my own talk page archives. It's pretty rare that I hand out such templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No opinion about this editing disagreement, but that page is not on "consensus required". It is under "24-hour BRD", which is quite a different rule. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's just a good idea to avoid problems. Any edit which is potentially controversial should be discussed first. Otherwise we end with lots of wasted energy and more heat than light. That's just my attitude toward controversial articles. Being bold has it's place, but not on such articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I see these alerts:

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.

If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.

If the latter is not consensus required, that's my mistake, but it is the one I was referring to. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the BRD sanction doesn't require anything except waiting 24 hours and then making an appearance on the talk page before reverting again, but I think talk page discussion is always the way to go, regardless of page sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That's my attitude too. There is no rush, and seeking a consensus is a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ernie, regarding that edit... Have you been watching Fox News again? SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I can only watch it when I'm traveling. And I was traveling yesterday...;) Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha. I knew it. I only get to it intermittently myself. It's very animated, so always a good watch. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, how did you know? Am I that obvious...Mr Ernie (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Very much so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

In the Mueller Report, the word "conspiracy" is equated with "coordination", which are legal terms and require proof of a written or oral formal agreement, a "you do this and I'll do that" type of conspiracy. Mueller did not prove that such a formal agreement existed, and it likely never did. People who do everything to preserve plausible deniability do not make such agreements. Just an expression of a wish is considered by their subordinates as an order to be carried out. The boss keeps his hands clean. Multiple prosecutors who have worked around Trump for decades have described that this is how he works. His lawyers have described how he doesn't give direct orders, but speaks using the same type of coded, plausibly deniable, language used by Mafia bosses. That's his modus operandi.

The word "collusion" (never used in the dossier) is the same as the word "co-operation" (a major allegation). No formal agreement is necessary for co-operation to happen. If I offer to do something for you, and you then facilitate it and make it easier for me to do, then you have co-operated with me. It's that simple.

Collusion and co-operation are not legal terms, but Mueller proved they happened in myriad ways using many different words. Trump, his campaign members, and his associates all did numerous things to welcome, help, and aid the Russian interference. That's "co-operation" in a big way. People see the allegation "conspiracy of co-operation" and stop at the first word: "Not proven"...ignore the rest. Well, "conspiracy" is a modifier of the "co-operation". It did happen in a big way, but is not always prosecutable, so Mueller documented it and didn't do much more, leaving it up to Congress and the American people.

Personally, I consider some of it treasonous, and here's why: The GRU (Russian military cyber warriors) was very active in this attack on our electoral system, so America was under attack by an enemy military, IOW an act of war. Any co-operation or failure to recognize and condemn is treasonous, as giving aid to an enemy in wartime is defined as treason.

Read this section: Mueller Report#Conspiracy or coordination

This too is relevant:

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]' – a term that appears in the appointment order – with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." -- Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2

BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Gogolwold (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Gogolwold, You are edit warring to include material challenged under BLP. I will request assistance at a noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The BLP claim is pretty spurious, you're just using it to try and bully your edit through without challenge. You're the one ignoring WP:BRDGogolwold (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Loeffler

It is absurd, laughable and highly inappropriate to have this information omitted from the text having in mind that this is the only reason her name is being mentioned in the media. It is as if we were to omit the fact that she was appointed senator. Mr Ernie Please kindly return this information in the article.Radiohist (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you weigh in over at Diane Feinstein regarding the same topic? Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are trying to politicize this issue, then I will be forced to contact an administrator.Radiohist (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Radiohist, yes I hope you will. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Michael Flynn and WP:ARBAPDS

Hi Mr Ernie, I very much dispute that consensus has been reached at Talk:Michael Flynn regarding the "new evidence", as the discussion is still alive and well. Consensus as you'd know is not determined by majority !vote, but rather argument. On the issue, I'm leaning the other way considering the lack of mainstream RS.

With that said, User:The 13th 4postle added the section on 4 May. User:Muboshgu reverted this bold edit on 4 May. You've reverted User:Mubushgu's edit on 4 May.

The article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and per the DS applied to this article: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Again, I don't believe consensus was established, and you inadvertently crossed the DS line by reverting Muboshgu's revert. As such, in good faith I ask if you would please self-revert, per above? Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I saw a clear consensus there and implemented it. The material is neutral, sourced, important to reflect recent developments, and supported by several editors in the talk discussion. If you disagree, go ahead and join the discussion at the talk page and we can see if consensus changes. The intention of the DS is not to block developments to articles, but prevent disruption. The discussion had been going on for 5 days now. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG case request declined

The case request "JzG" that you are a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JzG and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Harassment

I asked User:WWGB to leave me alone. He told me to “kma”, he then wrote some bizarre comment about imitation (??) and has accused me of stalking him, which is ridiculous. He auto-archive active threads and has been stalking me, and has sexually harassed me in edit summaries (called me a “cutie” in this edit summary). I personally don’t feel terribly safe with comments like those, could you advise how I can prevent these from occurring? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, I would contact a trusted admin to look into it. I would also urge you not to further the issue with comments on your talk page, but as soon as there is a concern to contact an admin. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not at all certain any admin will take it seriously. I personally am at the point where I don’t feel very safe on Wikipedia. Calling someone a “cutie” in an edit summary is a sexual put down. It is sad that Wikipedia feels the need to condone it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to blank my pages and withdraw until the WMF responds. If sexually mocking me is acceptable, then this is not a safe place to be. I already know that I will not be treated seriously if I approach an admin. Certainly AN/I is not a safe place to present this. A sad day. I think I may have reacted to that comment, which is why I added that note to my talk page. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no better advice for something like that, and really think the admins or WMF would serve you better in a response. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diff to the "kma" edit summary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Annual refresher

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 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 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.

O3000 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000, got it, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I finally got to reading the entire block discussion on my talk page (before that I was responding to Doc James' emails). Thank you Mr Ernie for your support and kind words. They are really appreciated. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delicious, thank you! I'm glad you were unblocked quickly, and was sorry to see you have to go through that. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're welcome, Mr Ernie. It was unpleasant, I wish no editor to go through this (I'm seeing you called for some indefs). I see you've been active on Fram's meta page. Thus, I want to share with you evidence I found. I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement on the Signpost case request. I am sharing this because I will be stepping away from Wikipedia, and may not be further involved in the ArbCom case. starship.paint (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you for the heads-up

Previously I viewed wikipedia with skepticism (because of all the wackos) but believe strongly that there needs to be a repository of history. This isn't the Library of Alexandria but maybe it will be - I'm not going to be adding any funny stuff or unsourced info regardless of the subject. Best, ExCITEable (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I read of your current difficulties and hope that the situation will improve on your end. Best wishes. starship.paint (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: everyone is good until now on our side. Many cases in the area, but hopefully the precautions enacted are working. Best wishes, and thanks for the strawberries! Mr Ernie (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

That's good to hear, I hope the good fortune continues. My own place is doing relatively well so far. May we all endure. starship.paint (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Jingle bells

	Happy Holidays!
	Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!! Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day? Every year! What do you call a bankrupt Santa? Saint Nickel-less. 🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻Atsme✍🏻📧 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Atsme that is very kind. I wish you all the best in the New Year. Things are very busy in life for me at the moment, but I’ve got a good idea about a new article or two once things get settled! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat! We’ve just moved internationally and are really trying hard to acclimate. This Christmas we will be getting a small tree as is custom here. I’m really glad to see you are still doing fine work and building high quality articles. I wish you all the best in 2019! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixing ping. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry to say it...

Yep. I think I'm glad I can watch from the sidelines. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple difficult cases up for review. I have no idea what I would do in the committee's shoes. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As I've said over there, it's far easier to deal with someone's "civility" than it is to deal with an Infobox 3 case, which is the real cause here. I made a point here when someone asked why all articles didn't have boxes. The policy, sadly, was the answer. It needs reworking completely. Hope you're both well. Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section of the project called the Sand Infobox where people can build and create whatever type of box they want. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see what you did there...😉 Cassianto^Talk 20:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Alex Shih, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will ask you one time to retract those accusations, or provide diffs to show the purposeful and blatant harassment. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, stop abusing warning templates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I haven't ever done such a thing. Please provide evidence. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: Your warning above is an abuse. Don't turn legitimate criticism of your actions into an only warning for "harassment". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: You need to back off. This user has repeatedly came into threads that don't involve them. This warning stands as issued. If you believe it shouldn't then I believe you're part of the group that is intent on removing my bit simply because you don't like how I enforce in AE. This isn't the first time you've harassed me either, I've got several logs saved of this type of behavior/attitude from you. I suggest you allow another actually uninvolved administrator tell me what to do. And get your hypocritical actions away from me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• The evidence you requested. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• And the evidence that NeilN has hounded even worse over the course of several years... ever since I didn't reach an agreement with him about the use of DS. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Coffee how are you an admin still? Honest question. You either erase your scrutiny or threaten the editor that wrote it. This is not how you handle criticism and this is yet another example that can be held against you when your actions are inevitably reviewed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @TheGracefulSlick: I'm not going to dignify that preposterous question with a response. You're just another editor who continuously has held a grudge against me for some unknown reason, and you also continuously violate WP:HOUND. I wonder if I can find evidence for such a ludicrous claim? Oh wait, here it is: editor interaction report. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Umm Coffee none of that is evidence. How have I continuously held a grudge against you when this is the first time I have directly spoken to you? I suggest you strike your personal attack but I doubt you will.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I see no need to reply to someone who has no intention of having any form of a productive discussion. I do not engage with people who antagonize situations, without purpose or being a party to the discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
        • A clever diversionary response. Coffee, for whatever reason, you may feel entitled to bully others and claim they are harassing you. Fine. But I am now requesting diffs to my supposed hounding against you or that you strike your personal attack. You must respond in order to comply with WP:ADMINACCT; by the way, that edit interaction summary doesn't cut it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
          • TheGracefulSlick don't hold your breath. I've asked for diffs documenting my "purposeful and blatant harassment" but have so far been met with more threats and insults. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Then I will report him to ANI. Admin accountability mandates a response with diffs or a strike out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
              • • I've read WP:ADMINACCT more times than I can count, and no where does it state anything about diffs being required. I've provided you the editor interaction utility which contains plenty of diffs, just click the link and you'll find out more. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Commenting on a high profile noticeboard is not hounding. And your comment about me is pretty nonsensical considering we both work in the same areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm so WP:ROUGE to call your actions what they are. I'm sure this is definitely a "high profile noticeboard".... I see thousands of admins commenting here every day to make reports. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN, Coffee, WP:AN. From the "evidence" you presented against Mr Ernie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That sentence isn't a sentence. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee in response to criticism about your admin actions, you threaten blocks [11] [12], belittle [13] [14], and insult [15] [16]. This evidence of hounding and harassment that you claim is just some interaction tool? Where are the diffs? I've disagreed with some of NeilN's actions before, but I'm sure if I brought these concerns to him he would not threaten to block me, or ask other admins to block me. You seem to just be convinced that your approach is not the issue, but the many editors who've brought concerns about them are the issue. I guess you view me as just another editor who holds a grudge against you, but I can assure you I've only tried to act in good faith. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You can sing until the cows come home, but I and several others do not buy this explanation one bit. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie, I think has become evident that you, or somebody else, should take this to AN. Coffee's level of decorum has fallen well below what we should reasonably expect from an admin and it is time to hold him accountable. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I’m still holding out hope that it doesn’t have to come to that. Ideally I could express my concerns and we could have a discussion involving some self reflection for everyone. Additionally I think someone uninvolved should bring the request. If I opened the discussion it wouldn’t get very far before someone claims I’m still hounding him and applies a boomerang. I do appreciate your concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For you....

Wiki Tribble

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~

I believe it's well worthwhile to acknowledge editors who work hard, collaborate well, and strive for accuracy. Working to build an encyclopedia is a selfless task, especially considering the mine fields one has to navigate in pursuit of excellence. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips endeavor. Thank you for all you do and all you've done, and for collaborating in such a way to make it an enjoyable experience for others despite the opposition. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Atsme thank you - this is very kind. I really appreciate your qualities as an editor. You've been a model to me and many others I'm sure. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme thank you and Merry Christmas to you too! Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lightbreather appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Note

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 Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Courtesy note because you (manually) reverted a recent edit at Aaron Maté, which falls under the community-imposed 1RR for SCW articles. That edit was probably exempt under the BLP WP:3RRNO exception, but I'm just making sure all editors are on the same page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think it falls under exemption 7 because it’s completely unsourced. I personally am not familiar with community imposed DS. Is it different than DS imposed as an Arb case result? Same enforcement sanctions? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly the same, but a bit less bureaucratic. Details differ from one GS regime to another, but for most areas, including this one, the main differences from ACDS are:

• Awareness isn't as strictly defined (either no requirement or, as here, a requirement of some notification but not necessarily the template above).
• There's no maximum block length.
• There's no route of appeal to AE or ArbCom.

Some also come with area-wide sanctions, as is the case here with the 1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, apparently the way the GS authorization for SCW is written, the first two bullet points above are not true, although they are true in some other GS areas. Under this regime the difference is subtler, which is that formal awareness is not required for blocks to enforce the 1RR, but is required for DS actions. Also, apparently the 1RR doesn't include reverts of IPs, so I guess you're doubly exempt here. Learn something new every day! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. At any rate my takeaway is to be careful. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring that point, courtesy note (being sent to all recent editors) that the 1RR window has increased to 72 hours for the next month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Cited source vs. External sources

Hello there - I just read your comment over on this talk page discussion. Since I'm new around here, would you mind explaining to me: what are the differences/reasons to include a reference in an "External Links" section vs. adding it as an inline citation in the article? Functionally, they seem pretty much the same to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The external link policy is WP:EL. I find this point to be the most relevant - "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Seems to be a textbook definition for linking to the NYPost piece. The reason why it can't be linked as an inline citation gets a bit muddy. The short answer is that NYPost is not considered a reliable source for factual reporting, but it is a little odd because the Post certainly ran the story and certainly made claims about Hunter Biden. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I see your reasoning on that quoted point. Though, this particular case seems to exist in the overlap between WP:EL and the many exceptional cases to WP:RS criteria. It seems that while the criteria for classifying a source as "reliable" are pretty straightforward - "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - there are a LOT of exceptions to these, documented in various guidelines and essays. I've found 2 or 3 such exceptions that apply to the source in question that I think would allow it to be used as an inline citation.

It's not immediately clear to me how to resolve a gray area like this... Ask for opinions from other editors, and see what gets consensus, I guess? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I don't have any problem with the story cited in the body and/or external links. For some reason though there are editors at that page who are determined that we don't link it anywhere for some reason. It's a disservice to readers. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zaathras (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)