User talk:Xerton/chastisement archive

Discretionary sanctions

You have violated the editing restrictions on Trump–Russia dossier. Here you reinserted "salacious and unverified" which was previously removed here after you first added it here. Please consider this a warning that if you violate editing restrictions again, I will report it to arbitration enforcement.- Mr X 🖋 02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I misread the complaining edit summary - the part I restored is something I am dialoging about on the talk page. Thanks for your good feedback. Xerton (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chastisements?

That's an odd attitude, and an uncollaborative one. Your talk page belongs to the community. It's our place to get in touch with you. If we place messages on a subpage, you won't get pinged automatically, as happens here. Please just follow normal practice here. THIS is the common meeting place where interactions between you and the community can happen. Just deal with it civilly and learn from more experienced editors. We're here to help you. Otherwise, if you want to archive messages elsewhere, that's your business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this page does, but I'm entitled to curate this page to my editorial preferences and this is the means by which I'm encouraging people to be nice: If you want to chastise me, it's got to go on my chastisements page, else it will simply be removed form this page by me - with no archiving. Thus the true intentions of the chastiser determines the results. If it's a chastisement aimed at helping me, that kind of post will come from a thoughtful editor who will take the time to post it in the right place. But if not, then under what obligation am I to prominently display comments which are intended to be something other than helpful? But to be safe, I've made the reasonable accommodation for those who are seeking to chastise me - they can do it on my User talk:Xerton/chastisement archive page. Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your good intentions. Xerton (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't alter other's comments. It's not allowed, and it's insulting. You are allowed to delete comments, but your attitude is uncollaborative. How you react to advice and warnings tells us a lot about you. You're welcome to delete comments, but that should mean you not only have read them, but have learned from them. Uncollaborative editors just delete, without learning. There are editors here who choose not to work with others, and who refuse to accept advice and learn from warnings, and their journey here tends to be a rough one. They get blocked, topic banned, and finally banned from all editorial access, including talk pages. No man is an island. It's your choice. If I didn't care about your fate here, I wouldn't comment.

I'd be happy to work with you. Wikipedia is a complicated place, with both written and unwritten policies, guidelines, and customs. (The last are tricky.) Learning from more experienced editors is very important. I've been here since 2003.

Understanding how to vet sources is important, and editors who imbibe information from unreliable sources lose credibility because they obviously haven't learned that yet. Neither you nor I want that to happen to you. I was just trying to let you know what types of sources are unreliable in real life and as sources here. If you refuse to accept that advice, then you're going to experience resistance everywhere here, and that's deeply frustrating...to everyone.

You need to build credibility, get a good reputation, and have allies who aren't also meeting resistance all the time. Believe me, you can find the other type of allies here, but then you'll be judged by your associates and risk getting caught up in their problems. Guilt by association happens here. It's not fair, but it happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Your edits to Talk:Microaggression are starting to appear disruptive. You've been informed multiple times that we don't perform original research, and that we go by what reliable sources say. You're not going to change Wikipedia's rules by disrupting the microaggression talk page. If you want to change the rules, I suggest you go edit the WP:RS or WP:OR talk pages and gain consensus there. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit [1]. It directly contradicts your chastisement of me. Xerton (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sally Yates. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Xerton reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 03:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sally Yates. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop edit warring on this article before you are topic banned from editing it altogether. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Xerton: Fox News is what we consider a "reliable source" but some of the sources you presented are not. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for general guidelines and the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for established consensus on specific sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some consider it a RS, mostly right-wingers and Republicans, but many don't. Read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Fox News a WP:RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading. There's consensus that Fox News is a reliable source. There has never been a consensus otherwise. Xerton: When using Fox News follow the guidance at WP:IRS as you would with any other RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially rated a RS, but there are strong reservations about that among some of our most experienced editors and admins, as the discussion above indicates. It's only a matter of time before it's deprecated for politics. It's a GOP propaganda channel (Ailes created it for that purpose) and not even "news", but part of Fox Entertainment Group. It's also rated the least reliable major news channel by fact checkers.

Just know that it is widely disputed as a RS for politics, so if it's used, don't be surprised if you get pushback from other editors. Its reliability is widely disputed by experienced editors and often debunked and replaced by more reliable sources. Whenever Fox reports something, check other sources before blindly believing it. Its spin is often so strong that it becomes unreliable and misleading. (Shep Smith is the exception. He's a real journalist.)

It's often the last link in a chain of misinformation originating in Russia, especially since Putin started backing Trump several years ago. The pathway from Russia to Fox News (during the election) has been discovered and analyzed by intelligence agencies, and here described by Paul Wood:

"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source

Note that Fox occasionally picks up a few of the real fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it. Fox is usually the last link in the chain, and feeds their viewers with misinformation and spin. Fox News is Trump's main source of information. That's pretty scary.

I have much more at my (unfinished) Reliable sources stash. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambden is correct about some of your sources. Most of those you list above are extremely unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerton (talk • contribs) [reply]