User talk:Rotaryenginepete

Explain your request-reopening

As with your edit in this, can you please explain why you reopened the request? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly re-opened the request because I and several other editors in the talk feel that it is not conveying facts, though some items are cleverly disguised as such, or a complete picture of the impeachment situation. Millions of people read Wikipedia, so it should be important. My edit request hopes to resolve at least two of the problems.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Can you please describe at least two of the problems you are facing, regarding the article's truthfulness? I also corrected your indentation, as you are replying to me; if this is in error, please reindent it again. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered them in my initial edit request. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2019

1. By legal definition, Trump is not impeached yet. (We are currently debating the technicalities of this).

2. The claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is not discredited, it is contested by certain political opponents. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, we are debating it, but as WMSR put it, "Reportage from every reliable source, from MSNBC to Fox News, states that the President has been impeached. You have been presented with myriad sources, and have responded with your own interpretations of procedure and one Bloomberg opinion article. It's time to drop the stick." Perhaps we should wait until Pelosi, McConnell, or whoever makes a move, instead of squabbling about what stuff we may/may not have. Sorry, but the current consensus is that the President is impeached. I invite User:WMSR to participate and give opinion on where to go next on this. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if consensus becomes fact, then how are opinions differentiated from facts? I can think of several points in history where the majority consensus was wrong...which is why I am still here at this debate table.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this talk and discussion is going no where, and I predict it to end in a stalemate. I can tell that this won't end until someone of authority in Congress or where ever makes a move. Be it Pelosi sending articles, or the Senate suddenly doing a trial (as your bloomberg opinion article says is possible). WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. How is discredit different from contested? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited is subjective to the reader, in your opinion it could be discredited, but in mine it may not be. Contested is more accurate because it doesn't infer a conclusive outcome.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seems fair. I'll support this change. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

I retract my statement. Discredit is true here, because the conspiracy is false, and has been proven false. To say it has been contested would be downplaying the fact that the theory has been debunked. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "source" proved it "false"? There is myriad documentation, even audio evidence.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of it but do not present it. See [1]. The conspiracy theory is that when CrowdStrike (a cybersecurity firm that held the DNC servers) was hacked by Russia, that because the DNC and Crowdstrike didn’t give the FBI the “server” that was hacked, falsely showing it may be evidence of a cover-up. In Trump’s regurgitating of this theory to the Ukrainian president he also seemed to suggest that the DNC server in question had ended up in Ukraine because, as Trump has falsely claimed, Crowdstrike has Ukrainian owners. This is false on both points. The FBI didn't need the servers, they already knew what they needed to know. Hence, this entire conspiracy theory is wrong. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it (the Crowdstrike conspiracy) being the basis of the request is presumed, not actually mentioned by Trump in the phone call or within any pertinent/factual evidence.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actual document with Trump's call says on page 3: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows alot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.", this proves that he endorsed that same CrowdStrike theory. This is from the White House website, so it is a reliable source. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I missed that part because I was focused on the Abuse of Power charge and not the findings of the inquiry. But I maintain the wording is still ambiguous enough to lead the reader into believing that Ukraine was not involved in 2016 election "interference".

Just because it may not be proven exactly how a certain ex-mayor lawyer is shouting, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's a reason I said "certain political opponents" because the folks who wrote this article are political opponents, yet they agree on the evidence there was Ukraine interference. https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/ Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the CrowdStrike conspiracy. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election." While it is linked to content which describes how certain versions of the Crowdstrike conspiracy were not completely truthful, that does not debunk the other conspiracies that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. The statement is ambiguous to that end, because there were other avenues to Ukraine interference which I cited. So either it needs to say contested, or it needs to specifically say the discredited Crowdstrike conspiracy.

Okay. I changed "discredited conspiracy theory" to "false CrowdStrike conspiracy theory". Is this sufficient? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes. thank you very much.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please mention the editors you speak of, so that they too can participate in this resolvement? Thank you. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to comments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

User:MugwumpSpirit110, User:MoMoBig, User:Sonar1313, User:50.37.100.51, User:Jacket2018, User:Xenagoras, User:50.37.112.189, User:Partytemple, and User:StanTheMan0131 Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everything about this discussion boils down to OP screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Frankly, your opinion does not matter. My opinion, likewise, does not matter. What matters is what reliable sources report, and unless you can produce reliable sources that explicitly say what you're alleging, this discussion is over. WMSR (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two Bloomberg articles I posted are written by a Harvard Constitutional scholar, though the first one is in the opinion editorial, he cites factual sources and judicial rulings, which I also cited in my change request. My edits are in the spirit of neutrality, because the content of this impeachment page is not conveying the minority view. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between a minority view and a WP:FRINGE view. This would be classified as the latter, as zero reliable sources have reported it as fact. There is a minority view that the Earth is flat, but there is no requirement that this view be reflected in WP articles, because even though people believe it, it's demonstrably false. Same issue here. WMSR (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this view isn't demonstrably false, nor is it "fringe". A simple lack of precedent doesn't constitute evidence to the contrary. Your opinion doesn't matter right? So down playing the reliability of the provided sources doesn't fly. My edits take both sides into account. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? You've cited one editorial! The preponderance of sources say otherwise. This is getting ridiculous. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I've cited two separate Bloomberg articles, the latter which contains additional cited sources, including a judicial ruling. I will repost the newer one here.

Noah Feldman's follow on https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-22/trump-impeachment-why-can-t-the-senate-start-a-trial-now

Unpacked source from 2nd article: And as Whittington also points out, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in 1923 that impeachment is official “when articles of impeachment are duly filed with the Senate and duly accepted and filed by the Senate.”

Unpacked source from 2nd article: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources from https://reason.com/2019/12/21/when-is-an-officer-impeached-iii/ which contains reference to https://cite.case.law/fla/12/653/ and https://casetext.com/case/state-ex-rel-v-chambers both instances where impeachment was not considered official until articles are transmitted to the Senate. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is debated by scholars, as noted by reliable sources and many of the editors mentioned above, so Wikipedia needs to convey both sides and not dismiss those minority views on the opinion that the sources aren't reliable. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I made a new and improved edit request which features over 10 different articles on the official status of impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop changing answered edit requests' params to "ans". This is not a valid parameter for the template, and it causes the table of current requests to display incorrectly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread the notification "This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request." to mean it should be set to ans.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool your engines, you're going around in circles, for Pete's sake!

Not that I would expect less from a prisoner here of your own impeccable device. Or is it impeckable? Anyway, you're a tough nut to crack, despite my best efforts. Maybe you're afraid to admit you're wrong, maybe I'm blind to how you're right, maybe you're playing Devil's Advocate 4, while we three wise men are still stuck on checkers.

Anyway, thinking ain't drinking, and Santa Claus is headed right the fuck for all of us, so grab a mug of holiday cheer and get ready to rumble, eh? Whoever's left when the bells knock off their infernal racket can pick up the pieces of hammersquashed history and figure out who was right all along.

You do still believe in the War on Christmas...don't you? Not in a corny, commercialized and religious way you see on Fox News, good grief no. But real bloody horror, like in that one episode of Disney's American Dad. Would you merrily slaughter elves if your country said 'tis of thee? Or would you do with precision, do it with an animal's grace? I'd do it to it gently (do it with a sad look on my face). Either way, you know where I stand. The House has blown Donnie Johnny, and Big Bad Management is going to blow the House...away. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's impeccable by the way. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanta Menace strikes back with angry tweeting! Next: Are liberals trying to remove the name of CHRISTMAS from AMERICA? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well Who ate your butter! No question about it, is there? In terms of grammatic effect, I mean. So nyah, comrade! I like "impeckable". Reminds me of the impassable road to the south of a lifehouse I used to know. And don't try to tell me it's pronounced "lighthouse". I know a lighthouse when I see it! Impossible to miss! But a lifehouse hangs for just a moment, rather than stand for centuries. Closer to where we started, chasing after you. I believe the Yanks call their Iconic Depiction of this soft rock spectre "Uncle Sam". If memory serves, Henson named an unpopular Muppet after him. Good times, sorry about your rancid cream dispersing and getting us sidetracked. Circle of life, eh! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol on the xmas war...I write aircraft technical manuals for a living, so yes the devil is always in the details and I am quite particular about those details. But I'm also not taking any of the ribbing personally. I appreciate your humor. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

long long ago in a galax...err florida I was a mechanic in the air farce. It was a job that "seasoned" me well for debate. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're cool, too. I laughed at "seasoned", honestly. Only human to misunderstand a Constitution or newfangled doodad now and then. The last time I was in Florida, I didn't even know the value of money! Just pursued liberty and happiness and Hanna-Barberric things, cost me poor ma billions! If I'm ever back, maybe I'll stop by and you can teach me to repair the spacecraft I found crashed in my yard. I think it could be worth at least a grand. Can five hundred bucks still buy a day at Disney World? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never been to Disney, but I can repair spacecraft! It's probably worth a grand in scrap lolRotaryenginepete (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deal! I hear Donald Duck has been replaced by an ominously ticking Nazi drone as part of a commemorative 75th Anniversary Counterpropaganda Extravaganza. Probably nothing, but if it's something, it's nothing five hundred dollars and a little elbow grease can't smooth out. I may need to borrow the fastest plane you know at an ungodly hour of the night. You're still cool, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool...laughing pretty damn hard tho LOLRotaryenginepete (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Impeachment of Donald Trump for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information.
Reportage from every reliable source, from MSNBC to Fox News, states that the President has been impeached. You have been presented with myriad sources, and have responded with your own interpretations of procedure and one Bloomberg opinion article. It's time to drop the stick. WMSR (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okRotaryenginepete (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

- Mr X 🖋 03:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrX Do you feel my edit request is inappropriate? My goal is neutrality. All I am asking is that the article does not declare Trump impeached, since there is an established minority view that he isn't technically impeached until the articles are transmitted.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The alert above is a standard message. I think you have used a lot of words on the article talk page to try to convince other editors that you content proposal should be adopted, but you are not making headway on obtaining consensus. That should indicate to you that it's time to move on to some other aspect of the article, or some other area of improving the encyclopedia. I recommend reading WP:TE very carefully. - Mr X 🖋 13:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump. You have received your answer several times. It's time to stop beating this dead horse. WMSR (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please define the inappropriate behavior. I'm trying to improve the article by getting rid of the bias. WP:INVOLVED While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: 1. impose a sanction when involved;Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. Everything else has been explained to you already. WMSR (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bias had been clearly explained, every topic on the talk page you disagree with is labeled as inappropriate discussion. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, per the WP:ANI thread, because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]