User talk:Sychonic
Welcome!
|
November 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm Alessandro57. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Aghlabids has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Those leftists
[edit]I appreciate the feelings you expressed on the Andy Ngo page. I've found it frustrating that much of the content regarding reporter who is critical of the far left is coming from sources who seem to be very sympathetic to the far left. That said, I personally gave up suggesting the motives of other editors a while back. I've seen a few cases where an editor feels they are just calling a spade a spade but it goes before ANI and they get a tban or similar. If you are brave your input would be welcome on that article but do be aware that I've seen a lot of editors get tbanned from that article because they voiced their opinions vs WP:FOC. Things won't get better if all the concerned editors are voted off the island! Springee (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Pulitzer
[edit]I know you are a relatively inexperienced editor, with well under a thousand edits. You are trying to frame the Arizona election "audit" as a good-faith effort, but every credible source disagrees with you. It is a partisan effort by Republicans to undermine faith in an election theitr guy lost, and is restricted to the areas that voted Democratic, and the races in which they voted Democratic. That's not an audit. There already was an audit and recount, and it showed no fraud - that's why the GOP brought in the QAnon crazy guy in the first place. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not one who edits pages obsessively, and until recently have not seen as much need to. Recently I've seen a distinct tendency of bias in Wiki pages, far more than when I began reading it, which was long before I even created an account. Things on Wiki have taken a turn toward crudely political description and viewpoint in many of its articles. The political left has evidently decided that all things in any form of media must reflect a political slant. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, opinion here is irrelevant. The Arizona Legislature is an elected body, that includes representatives of its people and the election there was won by under 11,000 votes. It might be a case of frustration at the narrowness, but over 70% of Republicans in the U.S. think the election was fraudulent, and that translates into vast millions of people. Also, it's impossible to know how many Democrats think the same, yet would not say, since they liked the outcome. As to the outfit doing the auditing, whether it meets your standards is hardly relevant since it was good enough for the Arizona State legislature. You do not qualify as a source, an neither do I.
The results of the audit, or whatever you prefer to call it, have already shown resistance by officials in the main county where questions have arisen (Maricopa). The hostility of the American Media is more an example of its unrelenting hostility toward all things Trump -- it's unlike anything I've ever seen before, and that's since the Reagan hatred of the 80s. A good question has been asked but not answered: What is everyone afraid of? If all is as the hostile voices claim, the result will show it and perhaps persuade some that the election was fair after all.
Wikipedia should be above these partisan squabbles, or individual opinions on the matter, and stick with a proper encyclopedia's dispassionate neutrality. Wikipedia editors have to decide whether they want a reference source or an editorial page.Sych (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sychonic, you're not one who edits pages much at all. You have 619 edits, total. Me, I edit quite a bit (16 years, >150,000 edits, tens of thousands of articles).
- But that's not the important bit. The important bit is that you are rewriting the content to cast the fraudit as a valid audit of votes, based on sources that say the opposite. All reliable sources are unanimous: the Arizona fraudit is a partisan stunt being run by a QAnon / Big Lie conspiracist. They are comically incompetent, almost certainly in violation of Federal election law, and their "auditors" include people who took part in the Jan 6 insurrection.
- But the place for this discussion is Talk:J. Hutton Pulitzer. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- As you say, that's not important. In fact, that gravitates against your point, as you have come to believe that your opinion is more important than the facts of the matter, and have determined that neutrality is less important than shaping an article to fit your own agenda, much like the Media has done for years. As you say, if you care to place things in the "talk" section, that's entirely appropriate. Until then, your use of the rhetorical talking points of the partisan political types in the U.S. (not your home country I take it? -- it's mine) makes the article unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards in its current state.Sych (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sychonic, your behavior at the Pulitzer page counts as edit warring. Please see WP:EW. You seem very convinced of your position. Please use that conviction to convince other editors at the talk page, instead of repeatedly adding disputed content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sychonic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Appeal of being blocked Sych (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Read WP:3RR if you don't understand why you are blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I believe I have been inappropriately blocked from making edits. While the block is short and since I tend toward small grammar-based edits anyway, it's not terribly harmful, but I am concerned about the larger issue. My edits on this particular page, one related to someone I know almost nothing about (J. Pulitzer), only had to do with what I considered a partisan description and opinion-based characterization of one element related to the audit of votes in Arizona, currently being undertaken by the State Arizona Legislature regarding the results of the 2020 election. I first edited it to soften the "talking points" nature of the reference to this. It was met by a hostile reaction, and a reversion plus additional edits that increased the level of rhetorical vitriol, including references to a person named David Logan who is called a "right-wing conspiracist" and a purveyor of the "big lie" as if those terms really have much meaning or any relevance to the overall article in question.
I have been accused of "edit warring" but it takes two sides to engage in that sort of thing and am mystified as to why I am the one in the wrong when my edits were an honest attempt to preserve neutrality, in particular by using material from another Wikipedia page. This is in contradistinction to the countering edits, which are far more rhetorical in nature, but yet are apparently considered to be acceptable. I did place comments on the article's talk page explaining exactly the reasoning for my actions and I thought gave a reasoned argument in their defense.
I had always thought Wikipedia to be a place not for opinions but for good faith contributions from all those who are willing to put time and effort into making any given page a better one, to making it a more informative article, even if just fixing a typo. I do not believe it was ever meant to be a method by which political opinions are expressed or a medium for persuading anyone of anything. I repeatedly said in the back and forth that this article, and Wiki in general, should be about describing events in a dispassionate and objective way, but that was met by insistence that some things don't merit objectivity and facts are somehow suspect when they are not accompanied by adjectives or ridicule. That's not an encyclopedia, and I don't think going back to the original Diderot version is desired. Sadly, that is not a universal opinion, and some view the entire Wiki endeavor as a way of imposing a political viewpoint.
I am not one of them.
- All reliable sources - including the reliable source you were edit-warring in alongside an unreliable one - characterise the Arizona fraudit as partisan nonsense at best. Election audits are not carried out by partisan conspiracist clowns hired by the party that lost the election. There are rules and processes. Ballots must', by Federal law, remain under the control of the elections officers. That law has been broken. Markers in blue or black are absolutely forbidden from vote counting locations. That law was broken. Ballots must be handled in such a way as to preserve their integrity. Use of ultraviolet light to detect watermarks that are not used on Maricopa ballots has not been verified to preserve the marks placed by voters. Independent observers have been excluded, or admitted only if they sign non-disclosure agreements (wtf?). Remember all the crap about Republican observers not being able to get in the faces of the people counting votes? Here, there were no Democratic observers. It is a sham, and a very obvious one. One of the guys counting was at the insurrection, ffs.
- The Maricopa ballot was fair, has been recounted and audited, and no evidence of fraud adduced. Sixty separate lawsuits nationally have alleged fraud, and while many were dismissed on the basis of being hopelessly flawed, the merits were addressed in numerous cases and found to be absent. Numerous affidavits go no further than stating the reckons of unqualified people. Some were wholly fictitious (Terpsichore, for example, and Spyder).
- But don't take my word for it. Jerome Marcus is a member of the Federalist Society who was representing Trump in Trump v. Philadelphia Board of Elections. His statement to the court, in his application to be allowed to withdraw from the case, was:
- The Undersigned respectfully requests leave of this Court to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff in this action pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1. l6(b)(3) and (4) inasmuch as the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime and the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant and with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.[1]
- And all this is because Donald Trump cannot accept the single least surprising election result in US history. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by the largest margin of any winning candidate since the two party system began, and won the electoral college only due to a perfect storm of Russian interference, media inability to handle Bannon's "flood the zone" approach, and a uniquely unsympathetic Democratic opponent. Trump had sub-50% approval for his entire presidency and net negative approval consistently from March 2017. with only a couple of days' exception.[2] That has never happened before. He was the most consistently unpopular president in the entire history of polling. Approaching the election, he was sub-45%. No president since polling began has gone into their second-term election with net negative approval and won. Added to that, the Republican Party has only won the popular vote in the presidential race once since 1988 (W, after 9/11). Finally, Trump's handling of COVID was a clusterfuck from the outset. His approach to opposition has always been to try and bully it into submission, but you can't bully a virus, as he found out. It would have been astounding if he had won.
- Finally, ask yourself this: how would Republicans react if their guy won the popular vote but lost the electoral college? Especially 2021 Republicans? Trump and the first GWB presidencies were both achieved despite loising the popular vote. No Democrat has won the presidency while losing the popular vote since 1824. Two Republicans have done this since 2000. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- You added effectively the same material to the article 5 times in a 24-hour period, and were reverted by 4 different editors. This violates the three-revert-rule, and is why you are blocked for edit-warring and nobody else is. Consider this a lesson in how edit-warring works. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I restored my edits that had been continually reverted, not the other way around. I posted reasons for doing so on the talk page, but my last post there was not allowed, being blocked and such. Your obvious hostility toward Trump seems to have colored your edits, which remain biased and unworthy of Wikipedia's standards, or rather what used to be Wiki's standards. I seriously hope this is not a new lowered, diminished standard for the quality of articles. Objective neutrality should not be considered a "fringe" point of view. That would be Orwellian indeed.
- The background as to Donald Trump's election is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, which is what is happening, as a factual matter, in Arizona and what the State Legislature has called for there -- a democratically-elected body is investigating its election results in a fashion it thinks necessary. These representatives want to audit the vote, and since the Democrats refused to go along, that means the Republicans are calling for it on their own, even though democratically approved. Majority rules in this case. That was explained in the edited version I restored, properly so.
- As to what constitutes "reliable sources", these are not what they used to be. CNN is a good example, the New York Times another, of once respected organizations that have become indistinguishable from partisan advocacy organizations, and not just with an agenda, but a far left one, far out of the mainstream of American thought. Perhaps international viewpoints differ, I won't hazard a guess. In this instance, I would say that primary sources are the most reliable, as they are with any good historical paper, article, book, or encyclopedia entry. Secondary sources are fine, and even the formerly respectable organizations have good usable material, despite much of what they produce being infected with political bias; this doesn't mean all of it is. Still, care must be taken to sift through the good from the bad, the factual from the merely rhetorical. This is not always easy insofar as what used to be in an editorial section, for any given paper or other news source, has seeped into the news reporting.
- The basic facts on the election is that polls show vast millions of Americans believe that it was unfairly conducted and that the results were the result of malfeasance. A lawsuit maintaining this allegation was brought by Texas, which was joined by six other states, supported by 17 attorneys generals of other states, and over a 100 Republican Members of Congress. In addition, 143 Members of Congress voted "nay" on the question of approving the electoral votes for Biden. Whatever you may think of the merit of their viewpoint, these facts indicate that this is not a fringe opinion. The Media simply does not reflect the thoughts of an enormous segment of the population. The sad thing is that these opinions are quashed in the Media because no one wants to be deplatformed, kicked off YouTube, silenced on Facebook or Twitter, or otherwise trashed by an avalanche of bad publicity; the abuse of power in a democracy in action. I would think Wikipedia would be immune from this since it does not traffic in opinion, only what should be factual description of issues, incidents, and other material worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
- Whether a President wins the popular vote, in the American system, is subsidiary to the electoral vote. It seems you are not American or you would know that very clearly and its importance. In a Republic, more so, a union of states, one of "dual sovereignty", the system remains as it was since the 12th amendment to the Constitution revised it, but even there, the representatives of the states elect the President, not the popular vote. We learn about all this in elementary school, or used to, who knows what they teach these days. The important part of that is that campaigns design their strategy around winning electoral votes, not boosting the popular vote. This allows a campaign to concentrate its resources strategically for best return on value. You work with the system that exists, so complaining about it does nothing, means nothing, and has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. The question really lies in what happened in half a dozen states, all turned narrowly to Biden from votes generated by mail-in ballots coming from cities with long histories of Democratic machine politics and corruption. History is not enough though, however indicative it might be, but the evidence that has been presented is certainly credible, and was never considered substantively by a court, since al of them declined to hear the substance of the matters, using laches and standing as ways to escape allowing the evidence to be presented.
- Again, though, all this is not relevant to what is happening in Arizona. They are doing an audit because these representatives feel differently that you do, and want more assurance that fraud was not involved in their election processes. As I said, my opinion doesn't matter, but neither does yours. What matters is a factual presentation of the events, and my edits were superior to yours in this regard. Yours were far more tendentious and rhetorical than mine. My insistence on the matter stems from respect for Wikipedia's neutrality and standards, not because I want a particular viewpoint to take precedence over another.Sych (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, they are not doing an audit, they are conducting a stunt. Arizona Vote Review Is ‘Political Theater’ and ‘Sham,’ G.O.P. Leaders Say. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, though, all this is not relevant to what is happening in Arizona. They are doing an audit because these representatives feel differently that you do, and want more assurance that fraud was not involved in their election processes. As I said, my opinion doesn't matter, but neither does yours. What matters is a factual presentation of the events, and my edits were superior to yours in this regard. Yours were far more tendentious and rhetorical than mine. My insistence on the matter stems from respect for Wikipedia's neutrality and standards, not because I want a particular viewpoint to take precedence over another.Sych (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sychonic. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have been warned about edit warring and have been asked several times to discuss your concerns at Talk: J Hutton Pulitzer but have not done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your post at ANI
[edit]Please, please, please read and re-read WP:3RR. You have been referred to that policy repeatedly, including by an admin as part of a declined unblock request. "My edit was not a series of “reversions” – it was a series of restorations of an edit that I made that had itself been reverted." shows unambiguously that you still lack clarity on the policy. After you've read it, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Response by Sychonic
- "Reversions and the Manipulation of the Rules"
- While I was somewhat disgusted, and pretty much still am, with the way Wikipedia has changed over the past few years, I did make my way back to this area after being blocked. You posted this on my talk page:
- "Please, please, please read and re-read WP:3RR. You have been referred to that policy repeatedly, including by an admin as part of a declined unblock request."
- This seems to be a case of talking past each other, and doing so in a substance versus process way. I think beyond question the individual who kept reverting my edits related to a minor reference to the Arizona audit of their 2020 election results, is quite an avid, and arrogant, Wikipedia user (and whatever else, with hundreds of thousands of edits to his name). Unfortunately he is also quite biased in a way that does a deep disservice to Wikipedia, and lends credibility to its critics. That page had been pretty much ignored, with nothing on its talk page and few edits of the material, until I made what I thought to be a small edit that corrected a small bias in a description. It was met with a rather furious response by whoever this person is, and my corrective, mild as it was, and was replaced with an even more biased text.
- The editing "war", if that's what it was, that ensued was just me on one side, but had a rather more complicated other side. This page is so minor and so utterly unimportant -- relating to some obscure individual no one has ever heard of -- I have no doubt that the interruptions in the "three reversion rule" that fell between the sequence of edits were manipulated by this other editor. While I am utterly unwilling (and likely unable) to bring anyone else into such a silly contretemps, he was not. Here, I think I was completely correct on the substance, and that in regard to the procedure, he was guilty of bad faith by manipulating the system by generating the interruption in the reversions since I assume this was not a simple coincidence, that others editors suddenly became interested in J. Pulitzer as a subject (I think that's his name) and felt it necessary at that point in time to descend on the talk page and this one minor section of a longer biographic article.
- I was absolutely convinced that such a clear abuse of the spirit of the rules while observing the letter would be seen through and that my good faith attempt at substantive objectivity would be appreciated rather than vilified.
- I was wrong.
- If this is common practice, and I suspect it is, that a small number of high volume editors can collude and override small (tiny really) volume editors, like myself, no matter the substance of the matter involved, then process has won out -- without regard to the quality of articles and with little concern for the long term consequences to the reputation of Wikipedia.
- The fact that you did respond shows that you do care about what happens to Wiki, though I'm afraid it did not address any of the concerns that I raised in my rather lengthy post ("The Blocking of ..."). Even though directing me, again after numerous times already, to read something I had already read and re-read, was not a step forward, I still appreciate the response.Sych (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sychonic, I don't have a comment on the dispute at that page. If you are convinced that your edits were correct, the best approach is to make the case at the article's talk page. There are other dispute resolution options available (detailed at WP:DR). I am glad to hear you've re-read WP:3RR. It is—unfortunately for you—a rule that is all letter and almost no spirit. You'll see exceptions in that policy, but "good faith ... substantive objectivity" isn't one of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- From: Sychonic.
- To: Firefangledfeathers.
- It is actually not that unfortunate for me, it is far more unfortunate for Wiki itself. For me? It only affects my opinion of Wikipedia, which has gone down pretty far already so not much has changed -- I do now understand better why the terms "Insipedia" and "Wacko-pedia" and the like are thrown around so often. It is a truism of history that a small number of highly motivated folks, with time on their hands and a common goal on their minds, can produce an outsized effect that contradicts the more modestly equipped majority of people without strong views, but who generally don't agree. Lenin had his vanguard, W.E.B. had his conceptual talented tenth, Mussolini had his squadristi. It appears that this dynamic has been happening at Wikipedia for some time now, and that those who care most about the project care least about the fact that it's happening. This seems to be a small example, an inconsequential one on an inconsequential page, that has very consequential implications.
- It's interesting how bureaucracy can be found everywhere, with the lady behind the plexiglass saying "I don't make the rules, I only know what they are, and the computer screen tells me ..." That's pretty much "all letter and almost no spirit" in a nutshell. I've always found the dystopia of Brazil to be even scarier than 1984 or Brave New World.
- I suspect those who control the levers of this world are much like any other bureaucracy: entrenched, cumbersome, torpid, self-satisfied, apolitically conservative insofar as being adamantly resistant to action or reform, and hidebound by the regulations in place. The Titanic may be sinking, but as long as the luggage protocols are being observed, all is well.
- Regards,
- Sych (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Collaboration
[edit]Maybe this custom message would help to explain some of the previous difficulties instead of the common templates. I've seen the claim that collaboration on WP means that it should present an equal balance of opinions from the diversity of its editors. WP must however present the view of reliable sources instead. It's also part of collaboration to follow common procedures like bold-revert-discuss (consensus, for more information). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or free speech and its talk pages are also not discussion forums. Valid criticism as presented by sources is also acceptable in articles per WP:NPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: Collaboration
[edit]As a response to the above "Collaboration":
The concern that engendered my recent comment on the administrator page ("The Blocking of Sychonic") related to my being blocked for a short time as a penalty for "edit warring". This resulted from my edit being reverted, and my subsequent restorations of that edit. I felt those restorations did not constitute any form of bad faith editing, and that quite the reverse, the person so infuriated by my edit was motivated by bias and was attempting to spin the article rather than provide helpful information. My attempt at a fact-based description of the audit going on in Arizona related to the 2020 election results made user:JzG quite angry, since he has a quite negative and decided opinion against the actions taken by the Arizona State Senate Republicans. He has an obvious left wing bias, seems very concerned with American politics even though British (so says his user page), and may have some administrator status, I don't know about such minutiae of WikiWorld. He also has the resources and knowledge base to bring other editors in to skirt the letter of the rules, while I am quite the primitive in such things.
With that as background, your caution as to some folks believing that there should be a "balance of opinions from the diversity of its editors" is inapplicable. My entire point is that there should be a neutrality in point of view that is based in fact. It should not have a viewpoint of any kind. My point is that objectivity does exist and can be reached by the well-written article. Writing, words, can be used to reveal or conceal, to communicate or to obfuscate, and this is the issue that needs to be addressed.
It is broached with the use of the term "reliable sources", which raises the question -- what happens when the reliable source is no longer reliable? Major new outlets are now generally tendentious, and in places have become outright advocacy organizations. The New York Times for example, has extended its editorial position into its news articles and no distinction can be seen between them. I would suggest that a "reliable sources" does not come from having an established name any more, but rather the content of the article in question. Is it fair? Does it skew the information in an irresponsible way? Does it omit basic facts? Is it even true?
The most recent display of an outright falsehood posted by the NY Times is the case of Officer Brian Sicknick, the U.S. Capitol Police Officer who died shortly after the Capitol Hill Breach on January 6, 2021. The NY Times reported that he had been "murdered" (a word I saw repeatedly after their new story) by someone after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. It turns out the officer died from a stroke and had not been hit in the head and showed no signs of any blunt force trauma, and in fact talked with his family after the incident was over and said he felt generally fine. The NY Times grudgingly printed a retraction, but the story had been picked up widely and is still cited. Basic journalistic standards were not followed in that example because of what the NY Times has become, utterly political. Now this is not true across the board, and I expect the NY Times is still reliable in places, on some things, but it is a case-by-case test.
The same can be said of other news outlets, and this is not just my opinion, but has been discussed in detail, though not in the places where the problem exists, that being the Media outlets themselves.
Here is another example, just the first sentence on a report related to the events that were triggered by death of Winston Boogie Smith:
A "reliable source", as I assume the Washington Post might be called, started off its article this way:
- "The family of a 32-year-old Black Minneapolis man is calling for transparency in the investigation of the man’s death after he was shot Thursday by members of a U.S. Marshals Service task force who were trying to arrest him."
An "unreliable source", as I will assume the Breitbart website would be called, stated it this way:
- "Burning, rioting, and looting broke out in Minneapolis on Friday night after deputies shot and killed a wanted felon who fired on them."
It seems clear the unreliable source has more relevant information included in its first sentence than does the "reliable" source, which doesn't even mention the violence associated with the death, nor that he fired on the deputies, nor that he was a felon, nor that he was wanted by police. It is clear that the "reliable" source has decided to emphasize a certain view point rather than explain facts. One may argue that Breitbart in its lead emphasizes what it wants -- the rioting, looting, and burning, but all of those things are factually true, and pretty important in the basic story of what happened. Does the family calling for "transparency" really override rioting in terms of relevance?
This is my criticism of the Wikipedia policies. The collective administrator group seems unwilling to consider that the protocols, or at least their enforcement, have become outmoded, outdated, and badly in need of repair if any of Wikipedia's reputation is to be salvaged. I consider these to be "Valid criticism as presented by sources" as was mentioned in your comment.
Thanks again for your interest in the topic that I raised.
Regards,
Sych (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
DS Alert
[edit]
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-1992 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.
Jorm (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David L. Bazelon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham v. United States. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wandering Jew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arak.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
January 2022
[edit] Hello, I'm LaundryPizza03. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, American decline, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jefferson–Hemings controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund Bacon.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Please do not use Media bias/Fact Check as a source
[edit]WP:RSP says "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings." Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit] Hi Sychonic! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Origins of the American Civil War several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sychonic reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: ). Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring at Origins of the American Civil war
[edit]Hello Sychonic. You've been warned for long term edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Routine DS alerts
[edit]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 intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Woke. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’m curious as to how my critique was “disruptive” since I think it was constructive. I’m aware of the guidelines and find my particular transgression difficult to spot. I made two specific notes on the article, one the lack of footnotes in the first two paragraphs. Second that the article generally fails to follow the evolution of the term “woke”. These were followed by the observation that fixing these problems would be difficult since Wikipedia suffers from a distinct bias toward the “woke” viewpoint. This is a very common assessment (at least in the U.S.). Even a Vanity Fair article recently made a passing reference to Wikipedia’s dwindling credibility (an article about the bored Russian housewife hoax). It seems ironic that my mild criticism could be construed as “disruptive” and merely serves to confirm the point rather than anything else. This article needs improvement and I’m dissuaded from even trying to help because of this phenomenon. If administrators and editors are not aware of the problem, as my post attempted to communicate, then it will never turn back into what it once was. It would certainly be a loss if would-be editors see a chance to help and then decide not to for fear of offending someone. Sychonic (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how you think using terms like
Wokepedia
or commenting on Wikipedia'svanishing credibility
is constructive. Your tone was inappropriate and is a bad method for gaining any sort of WP:CONSENSUS you may be looking for. You can make notes on areas to improve the article, but not like that. Also note that per WP:LEAD, the lead section generally doesn't have footnotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC) - I thought it was bored Chinese housewife? Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how you think using terms like
Jeffrey Clark article and your other grievances
[edit]"Hatchet Job?" Really? What you’re essentially saying is that anyone who presents facts that happen to refute claims made by right-wingers is "woke." So, not only do you idolize Trump, but you also mimic his linguistic tendencies. Wow. Clearly you’ve been oblivious to the following points. Jeffrey Clark needs no help whatsoever in looking bad. Trump needs no help whatsoever in looking bad. They look bad entirely due their self-destructive behavior. Your ideological inflexibility makes you as non-constructive from the far right as the PC loons are from the far left. Your unwillingness or inability to reconcile this truth is not on Wikipedia: it’s entirely on you, so, good luck on your much-needed recovery.Les Whinin (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,