User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 22

Reduced activity

Real life calls. I won't be around as often! starship .paint (exalt) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, take care starship and blessings to you~ ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gwennie-nyan - I'm sure I'll be alright :) Same to you! starship .paint (exalt) 06:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, Starship.paint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz :) You too starship .paint (exalt) 06:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that, hoping ain't Wikibreaking! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little break from a break! Hopefully that’s allowed! starship .paint (exalt) 02:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, wish it could've been on a better day… ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goddamnit, she was my favourite Game of Thrones talk page character! Rest in peace, worthy adversary. Starship, I guess that makes you my new active favourite (break all the breaks you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what an unfortunate event, Gwennie-nyan. Such is life, but please take care yourself as well. InedibleHulk - semi-active. starship .paint (exalt) 04:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've still got it (clap clap, clap-clap-clap!). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump consensus list

Hi, SP. There is no requirement of a formal close for the consensus items on the list. Nor is further ongoing discussion sufficient to deprecated and remove any item. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: - understood. I'm still sticking to my decision, with the reason that the material is clearly still contentious, and that editors were being threatened over it, as a reason why a formal close would be needed in this particular case. starship .paint (exalt) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the list doesn't preclude that. It just prevents ping-pong reverts in the interim. It really would be best to restore. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, SPECIFICO, but in light of the objections per MOS:BLPTENSE, I am unwilling to restore. starship .paint (exalt) 14:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was what made the least sense to me - easily adjusted for that concern. But the article will stabilize over time. I never thought that list was a good idea, and it was used too often as a hammer by a few editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC @ Talk:Russia

Do you have any comment on the RFC on the Russia talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#RFC:_Human_rights_in_lead DeathTrain (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeathTrain: - don't add too many options (you won't get a definitive result), and don't WP:CANVASS me to go there, if you list it as an RFC (as you have), people will drop by and weigh in. If you want more input, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries and announce the RFC. starship .paint (exalt) 08:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: - thank you, in fact the Signpost brought me there! What a loss. starship .paint (exalt) 23:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Enjoy your break! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are "you people" even trying anymore?

With this Sicknick thing, I mean. Trump is gone. Wasn't that the entire goal? You've changed, man! And in my mystical mumbojumbonic new age expert opinion, all that transpired played a role in your condition. Yes, that condition. All that transpired. Nothing means nothing, yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk - no, the goal is to accurately depict what reliable sources are saying. starship .paint (exalt) 10:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their opinions. Not just rather than the facts. But against them. Sad! That's not just a Trump allusion, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you can point to whatever select inline citation you want, but you know which paper started the fire extinguisher fire on January 8, and when its February 12 correction was timed. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - actually I did not know who started it, and when the correction was made. This happened months ago. Frankly the crux of the issue is WP:V. If you want to make a claim you’ve got to cite it to a reliable source. Plus you can see here: [1] AP had their own source. [2] WSJ had their own source. This may have been the same source as the NYT, or it might not. So why only blame the NYT? If the other media outlets only quoted NYT I would understand blaming NYT. But this wasn’t the case. starship .paint (exalt) 00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and exactly what opinion am I promoting? starship .paint (exalt) 00:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unwittingly, you're perpetuating the myth that disagreeing with fake news and corrupt politicians is a life-threatening lifestyle. I'm sorry you didn't know. But your ass has now called somebody, and that old man here is me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's still not clear enough, just google "nyt correction extinguisher", even Snopes knows. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - right, so the NYT issued a correction - and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol has been updated with adequate sources. That's what I wanted, really. Adherence to WP:V. I'm not sure if you got that. If the facts are on your side, add the sources. starship .paint (exalt) 01:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't copy and paste, type like in a video game and that page is a memory hog. Anyway, I still like you and think you do fine work. If you happen to discover any room for improvement, though, I hope you seize the opportunity! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (and the stalkers!), when I say "you people", it's as opposed to "those people", not comparing anyone to "my people". And that grouping's intended ideologically. Nothing ethnic, sexual or civic! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just innocently creeping up behind you and noticed you sent a "Death of Brian Sicknick" thread to the "Trial of Derek Chauvin" archive. I didn't know that was even possible, rare example of a legit amazing move! But yeah, not entirely convinced you meant to pull it off. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - holy moley. Who's messing with space-time? Dr Strange? starship .paint (exalt) 03:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen any movie he's in, and only one comic cameo (as a child), so you tell me! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - I guess we will find out in ten months! starship .paint (exalt) 03:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that sounds vaguely ominous, your timestamp has the same name as a Poppy EP! It even does if you don't. Oooohhh! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, it's also a Ja Rule album, 'member him? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So...what did we learn? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - I guess we learned not to do it again. starship .paint (exalt) 09:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of those sequels, eh? That's unfortunate. Maybe the animated series, video game and theme park ride can still turn it into a cult classic despite audience approval. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now Strange's wanking of the Chron Rod has sent the extras from Game of Thrones one decade fast into a bleak future (presented by Raymond James Stadium, WrestleMania, Army of the Dead, Peacock and the WWE Network), where even complaining about zombies is an SMH offense. Shaking my head, I mean. Stephanie McMahon Helmsley is no longer the queen, boss' daughter or executioner in this timeline, I suspect... InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the dead, InedibleHulk, did you see them eat Miz and Morrison today? starship .paint (exalt) 11:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, see my Talk, burn them all! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, John came back from the dead. But he's still a bastard, not a zombie, because he has a purpose or something. Where do today's bookers come up with this stuff? I wish a horse named Mr. Strickland shows up next, and nobody explains whether or not it's Miz' new white meat babyface form. Anyway, Andre the Giant turns 75 this Wednesday, May 19, so I hope WWE doesn't choose to keep its talent's families safe in the archives next to that "life-sized statue". Lyanna Mormont (or Nicholas?) can't bail them out this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for "going full circle" again, birdo, but I invoked the distant flutterings of our once-younger wings in a chaotic Arbitration Enforcement war to come, had no choice, the Lord put me here for a purpose, I swear it by the old gods and the new, blame them if anyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - your comment lacks diffs or links. That's not very helpful to the discussion. starship .paint (exalt) 02:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link it (or them) for me? I can't remember all those characters or paste, even "typing" ain't easy. I'll owe you one (or two)! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - done, if you approve this insertion, please say so. Also, just remove your 02:22, 20 May 2021‎ comment. It is a distraction. starship .paint (exalt) 02:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you, we seem square? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I owe you one...but later! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't owe me anything, InedibleHulk. I was just working on an article. starship .paint (exalt) 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good stuff. Sorry for creeping you so often lately, something in the air. Don't be surprised if I show up at an ungodly hour on August 12 with an unsolicited ~~"gift"~~ "gift or two" for you, though, just because... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you like comics, so got you a subscription to the next big thing. I also come bearing the next best thing, unfinished birthday aphorism: The only ungodly hour is. Also, I can paste now, and everything else that comes with a Ctrl/Alt/Home setup! Hope you've leveled up at least once since our last battle, too, sir. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - excellent level up, and thanks for the sharing! Frankly, I've never felt as unwelcome in any area on Wikipedia as in comic-book-related movies. starship .paint (exalt) 02:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're just outgrowing nerds. Want me to link you a virtual hooker? Some online poker? A new car? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - nah, maybe I'm the nerd, and the others are overgrown. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand what is unencyclopeadic. I'll be fine, no need for anything. starship .paint (exalt) 02:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, editing still ain't exactly easy here, either. The buttons on this Future Shocker are small, stuck together and unlit. But cheers to realizing desire is poisoned fruit for the soul; weather the storm in peace, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man, those animals were weird. LOL. starship .paint (exalt) 03:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue: An hour after that odd exclamation, a switch in my head suddenly flipped and it dawned on me which animals you could even possibly mean. I'm about half sure now, though, might still be on completely different pages. You're casting aspersions on human-shaped lions...correct? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - yes, Lionel Messi and Franco Grilla! starship .paint (exalt) 08:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt clarification and remarkable linking! Now I can sleep. Robert Robot is alright, at least by 1946 tech standards, enjoy! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reopening discussion

I request that you reopen the discussion you recently closed on Talk:Boogaloo movement. It had plenty of activity in the preceding days, with several ongoing threads not yet coming to a conclusion. Discussion is how we make progress and build a new consensus - going straight to an RfC is not a requirement. Terjen (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Terjen: - I am not going to do that, on two counts. starship .paint (exalt) 03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Procedurally, a local consensus is not supposed to override a community consensus, when it comes to contentious matters. This is obviously a contentious matter, the previous consensus has not been rendered outdated in an uncontentious way. The previous RfC produced a community consensus, because by default, RfCs solicit the opinion of the wider community. What you are trying to build is a local consensus among active editors at the article. You cannot override the community in this way for contentious matters. The correct way to proceed is via RfC.

(2) Strategically, the discussion has been trending against your proposal. Nine editors have participated, of which only InedibleHulk has clearly supported your proposal. I'm not sure who Pelirojopajaro was agreeing with, so it's either 2-8 or 3-7 (NorthBySouthBaranof, EvergreenFir, PaleoNeonate, Guy, Bacondrum, TFD, XOR'easter). While numbers do not determine consensus, rarely do numbers lose, especially when no WP:SPA or WP:Meatpuppetry have occurred. Furthermore, the opposes are clearly strengthened by the successful result of the previous RfC. The discussion has been open for nearly three months. That's more than enough time for you garner support. It hasn't happened. If you want to succeed in this matter, you have to take a different route. starship .paint (exalt) 03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, "only" InedibleHulk has made some sweeping controversial changes to more important things singlehandedly before! Remember the PPV sponsorship scandal? Some people accepted it as the way of the future. But yeah, sorry Terjen, I stand by what I agreed with, just can't go on outnumbered like this. The level of opposition is simply insurmountable. That probably won't change till 2028, either. If we're still here that November, ping me! Till then, I wish you well in broader, greener fields of controversy! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - the situation may not be "insurmountable". What will have to be done is to find numerous RS describing boos as something else other than far-right. Maybe "right-wing", maybe "libertarian". Then propose in an RfC to change sentence to They have been variously described as either right-wing, or far-right, or libertarian. One editor was in fact compiling such sources. But I forgot who. It was some not-so-active account, or a 'new' acount. Oh a search found it. It's here: User:Nweil/Boogaloo sources. starship .paint (exalt) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely suck at source compilation, would only drag the team down, slowly. If that hill is ever getting a rock like this pushed over the top, it'll be with momentum, not vacuum. Maybe a two-man job. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

On 22 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CW userpage retired banner. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BaconDrum

Wanted to express my appreciation for trying to get them to disengage at ANI; it is a shame that they didn't follow your advice. --JBL (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: - shame indeed. Didn't expect that. starship .paint (exalt) 14:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close edit

[3] so we need another section to determine a target location? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: - yes, I would think that would be best. starship .paint (exalt) 07:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Death of Ronald Greene

On 10 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Death of Ronald Greene, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was initially reprimanded for violating courtesy rules? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Ronald Greene. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Death of Ronald Greene), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,105 views (758.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virology / BW ToDo list

Thanks for your comments on the Fauci Talk page. I work full time on BW, and I can put some effort into WP articles. Your mentoring would be appreciated. There are so many articles that need updated. I just ran across the Marc Lipsitch bio, and there is no mention of his role in the H5N1 GoF controversy. That might go to the top of the list. Please feel free to suggest work for me. I strive for a neutral POV, but more importantly, I am extremely cautious about giving the wrong people any good ideas in BW. Charles Juvon (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Juvon: - what is BW? I'm not the kind to suggest work for you. You are free to work on anything, including Marc Lipsitch. Just stick to WP:RS, there is a list at WP:RSP, but if you're going into biomedical related articles, you need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. starship .paint (exalt) 14:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BW = biological warfare. Charles Juvon (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robinho

[4] This is unacceptable per WP:LEAD, especially when you go and contradict yourself immediately after it.[5] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: - "conviction upheld" means that the appeals court agreed that his conviction was correct. Upheld = support, that’s why he has been sentenced. starship .paint (exalt) 10:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prague

Great work. The inclusion of "appeared to be false" and other negative descriptions (which are varied interpretations/opinions), are now framed and attributed properly, so can be included. PME's version was in wikivoice making it an NPOV violation by editors taking one side.

This is a quick analysis, so I'm not sure. I could easily have missed something. Here are a few points:

Maybe the McClatchy/phone pinging stuff could be consolidated a bit more? It's now in three locations.
"Mueller Report states "Cohen had never traveled to Prague"" is in two places, and his false denial that he had ever been in Prague is gone (Previously: "Cohen said publicly he had never traveled to Prague, though he told Mother Jones in 2016...").
"She wrote that, if these revelations were true, "Cohen just lost his alibi. Additionally, if he lied about where he was and who he was with, his previous statements denying that he traveled to Prague are all called into question." has been shortened to "From this, Nancy LeTourneau commented that Cohen may have "lost his alibi"." The part about lying should be kept.
This part (The Washington Post reporting on Cohen in italy) isn't necessary, adds nothing, and muddles the waters, as it uncritically repeats the apparently false claim that Cohen had been in Capri: "The Washington Post in March 2019 reported that Cohen had been in Capri and Rome during his Italy trip, and that Cohen said he met Steven van Zandt in Rome.^[1]" That can be left out completely.
Since Taibbi is someone who has gone to the dark side and carries Russia's water, I'm now suspicious of him. He used to be good and trustworthy. The paywall blocks me, so I can't view the necessary wording from this source you use. We need to word that carefully, because, unless I'm mistaken, that's his wording, not the wording of the Horowitz Report, as currently implied.

I may well have misinterpreted an edit, so consider the above as just a few thoughts. Thanks for your diligence. -- Valjean (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You can read the rollingstone source via Wayback. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Helderman, Rosalind; Roig-Franzia, Manuel (March 1, 2019). "Two days in July: As Republicans convened in Cleveland, did Trump receive a heads-up about WikiLeaks?". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 4, 2021.

@Valjean: - (1) that's necessary, IMO. First part in the summary-intro. Second part chronologically. Third part is response to Mueller, also chronological. (2) It's not gone, it's in the next sentence? I just added "ever". Following the dossier's publication, as well as after subsequent reports, Cohen repeatedly denied having ever been to Prague (3) restored a summarized version thus doubted if he had really not travelled to Prague. (4) Disagree, perhaps WaPo has seen evidence that Cohen was in Capri. I don't see evidence that he wasn't in Capri at some point in time during the Italy trip. (5) What's the proof that Taibbi "has gone to the dark side"? Also, Schazjmd, why are you watching my page? LOL. starship .paint (exalt) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darned if I can recall. When I started editing, I began adding all sorts of pages to my watchlist, usually of editors who said something I found interesting or worked on articles I read or who had much more experience (for learning purposes) − it could have been any of those, so please choose the one you find most flattering.

I'll remove you from my watchlist if you prefer, just say the word. The conversation just caught my attention because of the comment about Taibbi. Years ago he did a fascinating long article for Rolling Stone on (then new) Senator Sanders, and I've enjoyed his writing ever since, but not regularly, so the idea that he'd done something to tarnish his reputation got me curious and I butted in. Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: - interesting, you're both older and newer than me! I suppose you're not a wrestling fan so I presume it must have been my work on American politics. No, it's alright, you can leave this on your watchlist. Thanks for sharing the Sanders article, I'll get to it when I'm free, and nice to meet you. starship .paint (exalt) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for actually reading and responding to my thoughts above. It's amazing how rarely that happens. I generally agree with your responses. After seeing that WaPo article, I see your point about Capri, but, IIRC, Cohen claimed van Zandt as a witness of him being in Capri, not Rome. That doesn't undermine the fact he lied about the matter, and he hasn't proven he was on Capri. Even if he was, he was definitely also in Rome, and that's easily within striking distance to Prague (or area) for a quick trip and meeting. I have lived in Europe for most of my adult life and know how travel in the Schengen Zone works. It can easily be done under the radar, and there are indications that he and one of his many phones were in the area, so I'm still suspicious. The WaPo article is interesting, and can be used for an interesting experiment. Since we know that Trump and Stone lie a lot, try reading it and assume they are lying with nearly every denial. You'd get closer to the truth than if you take them at their word.

I will share a few thoughts about Taibbi. The "truth" is in a comparison of his former and current writings. There's a huge difference. We may not agree about him, but so what. It's not that big a deal.

Taibbi used to be a very solid researcher and good writer, and I followed and enjoyed his stuff. The same could be said for the likes of Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald, and some would include Assange. All of them have changed rather radically toward the defense of Trump and Russia, and they all push the "Russiagate" idea that Trump is misunderstood, the victim of a witch hunt, and Russian interference, if it happened at all, wasn't a big deal. They simply are ignoring a lot of proven facts. I don't trust any of them anymore. They have changed, and I find that sad. -- Valjean (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when you write "you're both older and newer than me", what do you mean? I'm 70 and started here as an IP in 2003. -- Valjean (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe your "you're" refers only to Schazjmd? I at first read "you're both" as a generic plural "you are both", as in "both of you". -- Valjean (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: - I wasn't referring to you, just Schazjmd. Now, you are assuming that Cohen is lying about Capri (and we shouldn't always assume that he is). In my view, it is possible that he is just a forgetful person (and it is also possible that he lied, of course). Now, I am aware about Greenwald, less aware about Mate and Taibbi. What I am thinking that an angle that "the media was wrong" is simply that and not necessarily a defense of Trump and Russia. starship .paint (exalt) 03:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You ever hear the story of Nenshi and the Foothills County Reeve? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - information literacy is sorely needed among the world populace. Unfortunately these people already think they know everything. The more you know, the more you know you know little. starship .paint (exalt) 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the story I linked has disappeared. Strange. But "true"! And yeah, I know next to nothing. Just saying hello! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you're still young enough for comics, but now too grizzled and grey for funny animal hijinks, feast yer bloody peepers on "Dungeon of Doom"! It's got deception, skeleton power, a lady in red, a pro wrestling title and the answer to that age-old question: How a does a train engineer get to work? If you liked They Live, but thought it had too much politics, modern technology, bubblegum and runtime, these five static pages are "just the ticket", I'm afraid! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you

"I fly a starship across the universe divide…"

Wanting to let you know that you were in my thoughts as I scrolled my watchlist. (This template can be reused by transcluding or substituting User:Gwennie-nyan/starship) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me that song exists! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, again! Thank you, Gwennie-nyan! Are you well? starship .paint (exalt) 02:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Mishandeling of Joe Biden

Please refrain from your own personal bias and think logically. thanks137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you are on your way to an indefinite site block. Cut out the attacks, the POV edits without reason, and the single purpose editing. Starship is one of our most solid editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I do try to refrain from personal bias and I do try to think logically. SPECIFICO, thank you for the kind words and the watching. starship .paint (exalt) 09:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Starship.paint. Please check your email re:Ahmaud Arbery. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Starship.paint 👍. Cheers, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help improve the article to quality B. Thanks you. Youngzx (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Talk:Akane_Yamaguchi#Page_in_need_of_Copyediting starship .paint (exalt) 07:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Devon Nicholson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devon Nicholson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Nicholson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmPol

I'll soon be done with American politics, for the sake of my career. It's been a good run. Just thought I would let you know @Muboshgu, MelanieN, Valjean, SPECIFICO, Mr Ernie, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Soibangla:. Good luck with America or whatever country you're in. Cheerios. starship .paint (exalt) 14:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I hope you'll reconsider and return. Pleasure working with you. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will be missed. You've always been a calming influence and very careful and knowledgeable editor. Feel free to email. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, another voice of reason leaving Wikipedia . Sorry to lose you. I plan to stick around for a while, can’t let Agent Orange’s fan club go unchecked. So long, and all the best for your career. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate for us, but hopefully good news for you! Best of luck, hope you come back. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes. I presume you mean your real-life career, which definitely must come first. Hope to see you back and refreshed one day in the future. Thanks for the ping. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words @Muboshgu, Valjean, SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Soibangla:. You presume correctly, SPECIFICO. I'm not completely retired from Wikipedia, it's just that politics will be too sensitive for me to touch, and I'd rather not take the risk. I probably won't have a lot of time to come edit, as well. Cheers, anyway! :) starship .paint (exalt) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG and Scjessey: - see above. Nice working with y'all. starship .paint (exalt) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. It was a pleasure working with you; enjoy your future! — JFG ^talk 17:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most noble run of such a hideously-complex and often-controversial domain. Blessings, Starship. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG and Gwennie-nyan: - appreciate the kind words. Blessings, yes, and happy new year soon. starship .paint (exalt) 05:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby lift my self-restriction on AmPol but please don’t have any expectations on me whatsoever. I do not expect the editing to be frequent, and it may not be to pages like Trump/Biden’s. starship .paint (exalt) 15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-retirement, heard that talk page stalkers?

From 28 December. My job beckons. @InedibleHulk: smash. starship .paint (exalt) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drag that fuckin' weight, man! Or, you know...do whatever it is you do, and do it well. There'll be peace when you are done! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - apologies, I watched your link immediately, but forgot to reply here. I found that song funny! Thank you! :) starship .paint (exalt) 02:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I guess it works as a private joke. But "I Was Buried in Mount Pleasant Cemetery" is more what I'd call intentional traditional merriment. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: - chlorine is no joke! starship .paint (exalt) 13:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Glenn Gould! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are woods named Ypres in Southern Ontario, despite Wikipedia's reluctance to discuss such matters. This black metal being behind all that left-handed laughter dug death, pain, futility, loneliness, piss, sleep and renewable energy holes, but not war itself. You want actual elaborate edutainment on the oddly factual horrors of verifiable military engagement, you want Sabaton, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is time to blink! starship .paint (exalt) 08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back when radio was a thing, there was a time when all time was that song's time. It didn't care if you were sick of it. Every hour, on the hour, "Hello there...". Doo doo. Dadadada. Doo doo. Dadadada. Made me somewhat ashamed to admit I paid their label actual money for the one with "Dammit" on it, dammit! But looking back, it was at least better than that Hoobastank nightmare. That song pretty much killed rock and roll. You know who's still got it, though? Jack and Sally. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate you showing up and deleting that bulging coat-rack from Members of the Council on Foreign Relations. I've been a bit too stunned by its existence to excise the excess, and now see that you have. Thank you! Lindenfall (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindenfall: - you're welcome. It is not enough, though. The COATRACK is serious business, very troubling, and I am pondering the next step to take. starship .paint (exalt) 04:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starship.paint: I was looking at what to do about it beyond deletions, but, as often, got bogged in seemingly endless policies, so hoped that someone with more experience would notice my TALK note and have a fuller concept of what to do, then posted on Mrs. T's TALK ("Mel", to you). What you have done here is a remarkable presentation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour. That would take me a week. (I don't think I'm supposed to participate in discussion there, but let me know if I ought.) Thanks again for the undertaking. I'm going to keep an eye out for list pages... probably not on a lot of watch lists, so could be a haven for it. Lindenfall (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lindenfall: - yes that took some time. Since you are already familiar with the list page where the problems arose, you should absolutely participate there if (1) you think there is something wrong, or nothing wrong, you should say so, and if (2) you think there should be sanctions, or there shouldn't be, you should say so also. You are already familiar with the list page where the problems arose. starship .paint (exalt) 01:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, will do ASAP. I'd thought that page might be only for Admins to edit. Lindenfall (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lindenfall: - non-admins are free to contribute to WP:ANI and also free to vote in discussions (I'm no admin myself). We are also free to close discussions, but we shouldn't do so if the close would result in an action typically performed by admins (block/ban/or something else covered at WP:BADNAC). starship .paint (exalt) 01:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to sort out Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

Hello Starship.paint. I noticed the ANI thread that you opened about this article, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour. My own suggestion is that you open a new thread on the article talk page and make a list of the changes you would like to make to remove the excessive Epstein-related material. It is possible that others will support this proposal and you will be able to go ahead. If there is opposition, consider a formal WP:RFC. Either way you should be able to get a talk page verdict on whether to remove the Epstein material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: - thank you for your suggestion! Actually, I have already removed all the offending material that I posted about in WP:ANI (and I’ve also posted on the talk page before this). My changes are no doubt supported by Ravenswing and Lindenfall (both of whom also posted on the talk page) and I doubt that any other editor (other than the offending one) would restore them. What I’m concerned with is whether the offending editor should be sanctioned for even making the changes in the first place. starship .paint (exalt) 02:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he is willing to accept the consensus I doubt that any sanction would be imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Closure

Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.

The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.

I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.

Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)

The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.

I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).

RoyLeban (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Helderman, Rosalind; Roig-Franzia, Manuel (March 1, 2019). "Two days in July: As Republicans convened in Cleveland, did Trump receive a heads-up about WikiLeaks?". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 4, 2021.

[1]