User talk:MelanieN/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Am I going mad?

Hi,

I'm wondering, do you (or any talk page stalkers) see what I see, two pages at the same title? Even the urls for their histories are the same...

Cheers. Adam9007 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like the same title; only difference is that the cyrillic small letter U is used for the "y" instead of a normal "y". theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That explains it: the redirect url has %D1%83 instead of y. I thought it might have been something like this, where several normally invisible arabic letter marks were inadvertently inserted. Adam9007 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for solving this, matrix. I wouldn't have been able to tell. Reminds me of the time a troll created a phony page about their school, using the number "1" instead of a lower-case "l" in school. It was almost impossible to tell the difference in the font used for titles at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Loreen Hall

Hi again,

You may know what to do about this. Berture77 wants this page deleted, but I don't see how it fits our deletion criteria (though I haven't checked for notability). Is there some guideline that describes what to do when a subject wants a page about them deleted? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I replied at her talk page, and I will follow up. We normally have a page on anyone who participated in the Olympics, but I will ask around to see if that standard can be waived for someone who competed but did not medal. I told her to give me a few days to work on it. If it is to be removed primarily because she requests it, it will be necessary to have her confirm her identity to WP. But let's not go there just yet. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'm reading WP:NOLY correctly (Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)), she appears notable. Adam9007 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no question that she meets our guidelines for having an article. But I am going to do a little checking to see if that means she is REQUIRED to have an article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to thank you both for your help with this issue - belated thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Malerooster is edit warring

On Arby's, Malerooster removed this referenced sentence, was reverted, then reverted again only listing 'brd' as the supposed explanation. When I complained on his talk page, he has been removing this post, repeatedly. I'm writing to you since you've had previous contact with this contributor.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, thanks for the note. For starters, your repeated restoration of your post on his talk page is improper, and your edit summary "you're not supposed to delete posts on your talk page" is incorrect. People are allowed to do pretty much what they want at their talk pages, including deleting other people’s posts. See WP:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages.

As for Arby’s, it looks as if Malerooster is no more edit warring than you are. You have added your edit three times and it has been removed three times - twice by Malerooster, once by someone else. He is at 2R, you are at 2R. The reference to WP:BRD is exactly right: you BOLDLY added something, someone REVERTED it, so it’s time to DISCUSS. As the BRD essay puts it, "This page in a nutshell: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." I don’t see any discussion yet at the talk page, but that’s what you need to be doing. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Heather O'Rourke problem

Hi This article needs protection again as people keep trying to add photos of O'Rourke to the infoxbox that are copyright violations. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see the need right now. I only see it done once, and by a person who is auto-confirmed so semi-protection wouldn't help. --MelanieN (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. Shame we can't stop him/her. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Shame we can't stop them? Paul, I really don't see the problem. It looks to me as if there was this one attempt [1] to insert an invalid picture, and I don't see any other problem edit from that user (or any other) in the past month or two. What is the issue you are trying to solve? --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

another user also tried to insert a copyvio, this one owned by Getty Images. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, that isn't frequent enough to call for protection. Both users only did it once - and both are autoconfirmed, so nothing short of full protection would have stopped them. And full protection is uncalled for; it would have stopped you and everyone else from editing. This appears to be a situation that protection can't solve. If it (or actual vandalism) becomes frequent or recurrent, then we can do something about it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephon Clark

MelanieN, I'm not understanding why you would hat a talk page thread that's about getting to the bottom of the case for including personal history and detail about a crime victim. You mention "original research" but the claim that might arguably be OR (about the confluence of events) is not in the section you hatted. I think that there's lots of unstated assumptions and rather vague language all over that talk page and something needs to be done for editors to sort it out. I have not seen any progress in all those discussions since the first time I removed the information that readers might interpret as BLP victim-blaming. The recent proposal to gratuitously insert a statement about "the victim's criminal record doesn't mean he should have been shot to death" is not really addressing the central point. It will become relevant if we have public or official reaction that mentions his past record in connection with explanations of the events, but I have not seen any such published source to date.

At any rate I'm puzzled by your having selectively hatted part of this discussion -- rather than using your long and well-informed experience to help promote more constructive, policy-and-guidelines-based discussion. I think what would help is for folks to explicitly state their views and concerns instead reciting personal disparagement and claiming more or less, that it's obvious that the victim's criminal background should be included in this encyclopedia article. For example, editors who claim WP simply aggregates everything that can be found in news articles are simply wrong. You know that, and apparently they do not. Your voice can help move this discussion forward. There's a rather narrow group of editors there, so this is only going to be resolved either by greatly expanding the group -- e.g. by formal RfC's on several points -- or by some authoritative sorting out of all the lapses in PAG's that have been littered on the talk page.

Feel free to disregard all the above and thanks for your continued dedication to WP. SPECIFICO talk`

Helpful stalker alert -- if you want to entice Bus Stop into saying something that would reveal improper motives which could then be used against him in an admin proceeding, user talk pages are probably the best place for that rather than article talk. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. That's not what I was driving at. I don't think that editor has behaved particularly badly, certainly not the sort of thing worth a worry. But I do think that it doesn't understand PAG's very well and that it is not thinking through the issues very clearly. Its statement about the confluence of karma or whatnot suggested to me that it was laboring under a certain confusion, and so I thought it would be helpful to unpack either a contradiction or a clearer statement, and thereby to come up with a better editing solution. Anyway, I believe that that user did later change its view and that its most recent post on the talk page seems to back off including the problematic article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on any perceived problems, what is a PAG ? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Policies and Guidelines". At any rate, some outside opinions are now being posted at BLP/N so I hope that the talk page group will soon reevaluate their views and their disparagement of Yours truly, SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now the BLP/N thread is getting some activity. And now, we are beginning to uncloak some of the unstated views behind that dysfunctional article talk page, to with this: [2]. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any sign that Bus Stop was having trouble understanding WP policy.

In any event, I have zero intention of getting into one of these tendentious battles you're involved in, but suffice to say you are not using "relevant" in its ordinary English sense. Clark's adult criminal history did not influence the officers' decision making, and it could not have been used as evidence to establish his legal guilt or innocence of the crimes he was being pursued for, but it is obviously relevant context in an article about a man who was shot while fleeing (and then possibly physically confronting) police.

That is to say, it is not relevant to establishing legal culpability, but it is relevant in describing what happened and who it happened to. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Thanks. 😎 SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Good talk. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Same. I always enjoy reasoned disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you should never call Bus stop, or any editor, "it" ("I do think that it doesn't understand ... it is not thinking through ... Its statement ... its view ... its most recent post"). Administrators usually do not appreciate theynanigans like that. Politrukki (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's the preferred politically correct way to address our colleagues of unidentified gender. Thanks for the helpful off topic sentiments. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The confluence of conditions continues

After retracting his statement [3] concerning confluence and causality here [4], @Bus stop: has now made the same argument at BLP/N here [5]. MelanieN, you may wish to see how it develops this time around. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me, SPECIFICO. Are you the language police? What, pray tell, do you have against the phrase "confluence of conditions"? Language is a flexible thing. A word or even a phrase can be used in an almost limitless number of ways. Are you complaining to an administrator about a phrase I've used? All any human being is doing when they deploy language is trying to express themselves. If you don't understand what I've said, then that is as likely my fault as your fault and I apologize in advance for my clumsy language. But my aim is not to be unclear. I think I am generally deploying language to convey some verbal message or another. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I thought it was very expressive and tried to ask you to elucidate it in terms of article content and sources. But you then disavowed the words, so I just came here to express my surprise that you then used the same words at BLP/N. At any rate I asked you there as well to relate this idea of cause and confluence to the editing issues, including the concerns that I and others have raised in connection with the proposed personal information about Mr. Clark. It struck me as ironic that after MelanieN hatted the first attempt you would rekindle the flame. I have never been arrested, btw. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to elucidate. Time is a flow of conditions—is it not? Do our lives not intersect in unimportant as well as impactful ways? As I said from the outset, in the section that MelanieN eventually hatted, "forgive my flowery language". I speak in the way that I feel conveys my ideas best. I'd rather not have my speech hobbled by what I perceive as arbitrary objections. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

((ec) Well, SPECIFICO, earlier you told me I was free to disregard this attempt to move your philosophic discussion to my talk page, and that is what I have chosen to do. As for Bus stop's use of the phrase "confluence of conditions" that bothers you so much, I would concern myself with it if they proposed to put it in the article - but they don't. They are simply using the phrase on a talk page to explain their thinking. I don't have a problem with that and I don't understand why it is such a major issue to you. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. What in the world was the point of this: I have never been arrested, btw. ? --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently in some convoluted way because I said "Are you the language police?" Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't make it up. Google returns 146,000 instances of that phrase.[6] Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

NelanieN, I'm at a loss to know why you repeatedly call this "philosophical" despite my dozen or so explanations to the contrary. I'm not going to ask you to reread them, but if you do you will see there's nothing philosophical about applying the meaning of these words to our editing rubrics. I apologize for using the word hermeneutics, if that wasa the trigger. Current usage has many applications to jobsite safety, politics, law and other mundane non-philosophical undertakings. Anyway, I think you now see from the support my views continue to accumulate at BLP/N that the dismissive and ad hominem attacks on my thinking at the article talk page have been deprecated in favor of a more robust and policy-based view. Since that was my sole purpose, and since this is your personal talk page, we should probably all move on. Thanks for your comment. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "policy based" is a good way to describe your view or the support it is getting. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:FYI, one of the "include" editors is now openly rejecting our WP:BLP policy. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not openly rejecting our WP:BLP policy". I do not concede there is a violation of BLP policy. It is a grey area. As in so many other things, it requires good judgement. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:May I suggest that, instead of moving your post at BLP/N, which makes at least some of what follows unintelligible, that you reinsert it in its original location and simply remove the subheading there with "arbitrary break" or with no header. I would do it myself, but I don't want to risk further offending you. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not unintelligible because MelanieN struck through her previous comment. Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, SPECIFICO, but moving content to the other thread was your suggestion: [7]. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN -- that was not my suggestion. What I said was that -- in the circumstance that the discussion about closure was hatted -- further posts that related to the substance of the issue should not be in the section you captioned about closure but should instead be in the section (the main section) that was about the underlying issues. BS continued to repeat his views on the substantive question after he un-hatted, so at some point it was only your header and a couple of short posts that were out of place. So your move was really not necessary and if anything was needed to clean this up, I think that removal or replacement of the header would have been an easier and clearer solution. But as you know, I am not one to edit-war over hatting and the like, so there was no cause for concern that your comments would be lost to our editors and readers. At any rate, I didn't suggest the move but at worst it will just make the closer's task even more difficult, so it's not worth much worry. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you hat that discussion?

MelanieN - you should not have hatted that discussion. I have contacted NeilN to look at it, and I'm asking you to unhat it. I am going to provide RS such as this one: Politifact which shows the memo that started the rumor that escalated into the conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with racism. Again, please unhat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue was not the truth or falsity or origin of the birther rumor. The issue at the talk page was whether to describe such beliefs as racism, or more precisely, whether to list Trump's birtherism under the "racial views" section. Many many neutral reliable sources have linked it to racism. (After all, the whole reason for the rumor was to link him to Africa, the place where he was rather ridiculously alleged to have been born instead of Hawaii. All to delegitimize him in a way that would never have been done to a white man.) I'll find some sources for you, but here not there. Neil is welcome to unhat the discussion if he thinks it was inappropriate or premature for me to shut it down. IMO the talk page is no place to promote conspiracy theories or even to leave them lying around in plain view. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A few sources for you:

• USA Today (news report)
• The Telegraph (news report)
• Christian Science Monitor (news report, which links birtherism to racism but also asks if he is a racist and says “probably not”.)
• New York Times (editorial)
• CNN (blog by a well-known commentator)
• The Guardian (blog)
• The Observer (opinion piece)

Not to mention Vox, Huffington Post, and other sources which you would probably dismiss as “liberal-leaning”. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And BTW I guess you didn't read the Politifact article you linked. Because it says the opposite of what you claim. The memo advises emphasizing the American-ness of Obama's opponent, but it does not say or even imply anything about claiming he was not born in the U.S. My impression is that the rumor was started or at least massively promoted by Orly Taitz, "the birther queen" - she was promoting it long before Trump picked it up - but I can't find a source that cites her as the actual originator of the story. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mel - you must not have read the sources cited.

1. The USA Today was a ^{published in the communities/sciencefair/post} Science Fair ^{sub-title An experiment in science, space and discovery} experimental a study ^{in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology"} about that "contrasted voter's perceptions of vice president Joe Biden, "the most comparable target" with Obama." It had nothing to do with Trump. You can't be serious! ^{corrections 05:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)}
2. The Telegraph claimed that all claims doubting Obama's place of birth were tinged with racism. This is unbelievable!
3. The Christian Science Monitor?? You can't be serious.
4. The NYTimes is an opinion piece. My goodness, Mel.
5. Global Pubic Square Blogs - you've got to be kidding
6. The Guardian - another opinion piece - calls all birther claims a product of racial paranoia
7. The Observer - another opinion piece - surely you're not serious

No, no, no - this can't be. I am flabbergasted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I wish you wouldn’t misquote sources. The USA Today article is not about a “science fair" experiment; it is about an academic study published in a reputable journal. The Telegraph article does not say that “all claims doubting Obama's place of birth were tinged with racism.” You said: this is unbelievable! Yes, it’s literally unbelievable, because it isn’t what they said. The Telegraph actually said “Their accusations are often tinged with racism.” The Christian Science Monitor, which you apparently reject on its face just because of what, its name?, is a serious, neutral news source that has won seven Pulitzer Prizes. And so on. I labeled the opinion pieces as opinion pieces, to save you the trouble of saying so, but they did appear on the pages of highly influential publications. If your reaction to source citations is going to be “you can’t be serious” and misreading/misquoting, then it is going to be pretty much impossible to discuss anything with you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait. A NYT "opinion editorial" isn't just "an opinion piece". It is a statement from the editorial board. I hope you understand the difference. And the Christian Science Monitor, "You can't be serious"? The CSM is a perfectly fine publication. I could go on. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, it appears that you, too, have "assumed" that my comment about CSM was derogatory. I've already explained my position twice now (to Melanie and to VM below). I hope this serves as a lesson to all as to why such a comment can be so damaging, especially coming from a trusted administrator. I thought the editors involved in this discussion would know exactly what I meant considering the very 1st sentence in that article states he's probably not a racist. That's hardly what I'd consider a RS to support inclusion of birtherism in the Racist views section. As for the NYTimes editorial opinion...well, it is an opinion, not a statement of fact...and it's obviously a very biased opinion - bordering on hateful considering the following statement: ...inevitably, it was picked up by a cartoon candidate, Donald Trump, who rode birtherism directly to the prime-time promontories of cable TV. Now that's funny - cartoon candidate 🤡. My apologies, but I find it difficult to consider such an editorial opinion credible considering how badly they misjudged the election. Besides, they did not call him a "racist" or that his interest in Obama's bc was "racially motivated". Please feel free to carry-on and provide your reviews for the other sources...I'm always willing to learn something new. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)        

Mel - I fixed the exaggerated shortcuts for the 1st source, but it doesn't change my position - the birther paragraph in our article doesn't even mention the words racism or racist, yet it's included in the section "Racial views". Hi, Drmies...while you're here, maybe you and MelanieN both can take a closer look at the study you're defending - it's a single academic study based on data "collected from 295 Black or White students surveyed 1 year after Obama's election". I somehow doubt such a study would pass the scrutiny of WP:MEDRS if it was applicable for making extraordinary claims of racism (a medical/mental condition?). I also checked the Journal - it supports open access, the 2011 IF (when the paper was published) was 2.38 which is low, and its citation index was only 13 which is really low. Also keep in mind, Obama wasn't the only presidential candidate whose birth place was challenged in a presidential election, and again, there's no real evidence that supports the birther issue was about racism. The birth places of both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were also challenged. It's all about politics, and the strongest evidence we have is the fact that a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen. I used my own words to summarize the other articles - same song, second verse - they don't support diddly squat about specifically stating Trump is racist because of the birther questions. This is your TP, Mel, not the article, so I didn't think my review had to be formal with quotes. The quotes you added served to prove my point - none of the material in those sources specifically state that Trump is a racist, that his views are racist or that he was motivated by racism to question the bc. The sources simply don't support that claim. This isn't the first time I've proven the cited sources don't support the material - I did it at Racial views of Donald Trump. I have constantly been criticized for minor things, like using *sigh* in a comment to express my frustration over the cherrypicking of sources and repeated editorializing in our articles. If that isn't bad enough, I have to put up with false accusations that I'm casting aspersions (over and over and over again by the same editor who falsely claimed I use *sigh* "very often") - like you never use it, Mel. I recently joked about it on my TP and even included audio...humor is how I deal with all the PAs and condescension thrown at me simply because I'm trying to make the article better. BTW, I posted the RfC - let the chips fall where they may, and as always, I'll respect the outcome. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"You can't be serious" is what you said. Next time please be less cryptic. "Is Donald Trump a racist? Probably not,..." doesn't mean that his birtherism isn't racially tinged. There are lots of things the president says that he doesn't actually understand. The question here is not "Is Donald Trump a racist" but "does birtherism relate to racism". Challenging someone's place of birth isn't just "all about politics": in the case of Cruz and of Obama it was an attempt to discredit these candidates. Your comment on the NYT, ah well, of course you think it's "very biased". Those who accept reliable sources and the very idea of a free press consider the opinion of the editorial board of one of the nation's largest and most important newspapers to have some weight, more weight than a meme on a Facebook page, even if they don't necessarily subscribe to it: that's what it means to be neutral. BTW I don't understand the scare quotes you placed around "assume", but then there are others here also who don't always understand you. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, one more thing. You seriously need to start understanding reliable sources and academic publishing. You say the Elsevier journal (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) supports Open Access--as if that's a bad thing? I see what's going on: you seem to think that "open access" means "anyone can publish in it". Rather, it means that authors have different options for their publications related to how those are to be accessible. Elsevier is pretty predatorial and they're trying to make as much money as possible, but it does not mean that somehow there is no editorial oversight. So I don't think you really "checked" the journal, and as far as IF etc. goes, those are indices that are themselves fraught with difficulties, as much as the rankings for universities are. So I really think we've reached the point where you should just say "OK" and accept that such sources are infinitely more reliable than your analyses of them. I hate saying this, but at this point CIR is becoming an issue when it comes to RS. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies - FYI...I was schooled back in 2015 (by Doc James, e.a) about IF, systematic reviews vs individual papers, predatory journals, collected data, clinical trials, anecdotal evidence, and so on. I'm no expert but I'm not wet behind the ears. You already know how much I respect your opinions and that I have learned a lot just watching your TP and reading your responses, but I also know that we never stop learning. I have a bit more tenure on earth (hate to admit) which should hold some weight (referring to off-body), but for you to think that because I disagree with a single published paper that has a cite index of 13 creates a CIR issue is quite a stretch. I've provided a few opposing views by scholars at the article TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We're not in MEDRS. Cite indices only go so far. Besides, Doc James won't put academic articles up against opinions expressed on websites by non-specialists. And again, you are talking about not agreeing with some article. It's not about "agreeing". Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you stated: O3000 please, stop with the unfounded aspersion claims - you obviously don't know what it means or you wouldn't be using it everytime you disagree with someone.. That is yet again casting aspersion. I claim aspersions extremely rarely against those with whom I disagree. Extremely rarely -- except for you. Because you have cast aspersions scores of times against other editors for well over a year. Your statement: Have you not read the Trump-Russia dossier? Actual evidence is not required - allegations and opinions are all that's needed. Read some of the Trump-related articles if you have any doubt. was out of line and not even on topic. It appeared to be simply a frustration borne attack against other editors. You need to stop attacking other editors with whom you disagree. It should occur to you by now that it doesn’t convince. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

But can it be an aspersion if nobody takes it seriously? SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't hear that as I was in a forest. Neil correctly reverted your archive before I could ask you to self-R. Patience will out. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hatting is one thing, making it disappear by prematurely archiving is something else. Please don't do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

OK understood, but my impression is that we often do that with hatted, dead ends and that it's common practice. Otherwise why hat it? SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The usual thing to do is wait for the bot to archive it (the talk page isn't ANI). Manual archiving can also be done in unusual cases if there would be obviously be no objections - clearly not the case here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Hatting was done by different editors and was appropriate. Objective3000 saying "the editor can rephrase in a non-conspiratorial manner" is good advice and is something I've said myself in other areas where experienced editors pick out what may be a legitimate point from otherwise undesirable post. Pick out the point you want to discuss and start a new thread or subthread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:NeilN, for stepping in with your usual authority and common sense. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN - I don't know the editor who started that section - I simply added to it to demonstrate that a justified challenge does exist, but even after I posted beneath the hat, it was grabbed up with it as well. I do believe an RfC is warranted, and will get to it first chance I get. We actually have Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories which is not titled "Barack Obama citizenship racial paranoia" because the whole birther thing was a foolish conspiracy theory, originally concocted by political opponents looking for whatever they could find to eliminate the competition. The race card is just more baitclick comprising detractor opinions. The sad part is that unwarranted claims of racism in the political arena takes away from the real issues of racism, and causes more harm than good. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's RfC-worthy and I will take your side against any disruption claims should you choose that route, provided the RfC is carefully framed in a neutral manner per WP:RFC. I don't think the current tack is constructive, and any non-RfC "new thread or subthread" would be seen as a continuation of the hatted discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

May I make an honestly, friendly suggestion? Stop using the epithet “sigh”. Occasional use may be considered appropriate. But, you use the word very often. It suggests that you know the “truth” and have to spend too much time dealing we of inferior truths. Again, just a suggestion that may result in better reception of your posts. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

+1. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read much RS on this, but I don't doubt that birtherism has a strong racist component. The question for the purposes of the Trump article is whether the predominance of RS says that was Trump's motivation. It seems more likely to me that his motivation was political, not racist. If a huge part of the world was quick to take the birtherism banner for racist reasons, that was fine with him—and he was probably shrewd enough to know that's exactly what would happen. That makes him a person of low ethical character (differing from most politicians only in degree), but it doesn't make him racist. That is not to say that there aren't other things that make him racist, only that birtherism would be out of place in the racism section of Trump's BLP.
In a perfect world, the two sides in an RfC would make their respective best cases using RS links, and a large majority would !vote for the stronger case. In reality many or most Wikipedia editors will !vote according to what they already believe, regardless of the evidence, with a majority not even looking very closely at the evidence, and that's regrettably the best we can do under the current system. But that's better than not presenting the evidence at all. If you do an RfC, be prepared to spend a few days putting together your strongest possible case, or you will have no chance at all, and you will be wasting your time and that of a lot of other editors. To be clear, I'm not taking a position yet, and I would !vote for the stronger RS-based case. But I don't care enough to spend that much of my remaining life doing the legwork myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now that's a different question. Was personal racism his motivation for espousing birtherism? Almost certainly not. He even said so - he said he did it because it got him a lot of attention. I don't think any Reliable Source has said he did it out of personal racism. In fact one of my references - Atsme's much-scorned Christian Science Monitor - after saying that birtherism has its roots in racial prejudice adds "So is Donald Trump a racist? Probably not." But our article doesn't say that was his motivation, or that doing it made him personally racist. Our article says that birtherism is a "racial view", and that is certainly a defensible position based on Reliable Sources. From our article on the subject: "A number of political commentators have characterized these various claims as a racist reaction to Obama's status as the first African American President of the United States.", with four references And that is really all we should be talking about: the placement of the birther material in the article. We have it under "Racial views". It could arguably be moved to the "Campaign" section, and that could be the legitimate subject of an RfC if carefully and neutrally worded. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie - what you just said about me scorning CSM is exactly how rumors get started and bad crap happens to innocent editors who were wrongfully branded. Please redact your statement because it is absolutely positively FALSE. I'm beginning to understand why we're having all the NPOV issues at some of our articles. You just read some real craziness into one of my comments that simply isn't there. When I said you can't be serious regarding your inclusion of CSM, it was because the very first sentence in that article states: Is Donald Trump a racist? Probably not,... How on earth can you justify citing that source to say Trump is racist?!! Furthermore, an “insidious new form of 21st-century racism,” is what I refer to as FRINGE, and that's the best word to describe it without using profanity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You just read some real craziness into one of my comments that simply isn't there. Per what I said below, any miscommunication is entirely your fault in this case. The problem was that there wasn't anything "there". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I just wish we wouldn't be citing these important things to newspapers and cable news commentators. There's plenty of good sources available--I dropped two journal articles in the RfC, and one of them should be used to explain why these fools and racists think it's so important that Obama be a Muslim: the Muslim has become a racialized Other. Our article fails to make the connection between the two charges (foreign birth and Muslim). Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look for journal articles the next time this comes up. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't really pointing at you--I don't think you wrote the whole Trump article, haha. It's just that in all these "current" articles people forget that there's more than just the immediate online stuff that comes through by way of Facebook, when people in academia have pondered these questions too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I knew that. (It's not Facebook's fault that searching turns up "current" stuff; it's Google's fault. And our laziness in relying on Google.) I agree it would be good to link the birther and Muslim claims, which are both ways of saying "outsider, not One Of Us." At one point he was BOTH a Muslim and a radical extremist Christian; remember Jeremiah Wright? Doublethink is alive and well. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If we would only stop accusing racists of being racists we could tackle the real racism. Hillary started it anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If Trump's BLP places birtherism in a section titled "Racial views", it's saying birtherism is one of Trump's racial views. The article is Trump context by definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Christian Science Monitor is a perfectly respectable source. Pretty good actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Christian Science Monitor article that Melanie included above clearly states: Is Donald Trump a racist? Probably not.... which is why I said..."You can't be serious." Surely I'm not the only one who is actually reading the articles? ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could be more clear about what you mean by things like "you can't be serious"? Clear communication requires effort on both ends, transmitter and receiver, and you too often seem to expect the receiver to read your mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I expect them to read the cited sources and apply a bit of common sense. Jiminy Cricket, Mandruss, it was the first statement in the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

And you said "you've got to be kidding" about a blog, essentially the same expression but with a completely different meaning in that case. And people are supposed to just figure out the difference. Nope. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Let’s just say that it would help if you would make an actual point about sources, instead of “you can’t be serious” (three times) plus “you’ve got to be kidding” and “this is unbelievable!” and “my goodness, Mel.” (Actually my name is Melanie.) Anyhow, you have now, finally, started to approach a point that Mandruss already raised and I seconded: let’s quit arguing about whether the birtherism movement has its roots in racial prejudice, because it’s pretty well established that it does. You are now talking about a related but separate issue: whether Donald Trump’s own motives in espousing birtherism were based on racial prejudice, which they were most likely not. (Something I pointed out the first time I mentioned the CSM, although you then repeated it several times as if you thought I hadn’t noticed it.) Our article doesn’t say he did it because of racism, but it could be argued that by including his birtherism under “racial views” we are implying a racial basis for his position. The location of the birtherism material in this article is a legitimate question of article content. A discussion focused purely on where to put it could be productive - provided it didn’t keep shooting off into debates about the truth or falsity of the birther claims, or questioning the obvious fact that birtherism has racial overtones. And I see you did take the hint and post an RfC on that subject; you omitted the option suggested here of moving it to a political or campaign section, but I see that someone else added it. So hopefully we can have some respectful and productive discussion there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My carpal tunnel syndrome was acting up last night so I started cutting corners (which may explain why I find myself running in circles), but I'll try to follow your example as it relates to making corrections, like the correction you made after I requested that you redact your false statement about me, "Atsme's much-scorned Christian Science Monitor". ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

At the time there was no other way to interpret The Christian Science Monitor?? You can't be serious except scorn for the source. Since you now say you were talking about the content, I will strike it out of generosity. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Very kind of you, Mel. Or was it Mel? Drmies (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you must know, it's Melania. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you see the picture on her user page? O3000 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 The irony! Only on WP. Thank you, Melanie...would you like me to complete the spelling of your user name where I used shortcuts? My carpal tunnel is much better today. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I am beginning to think Drmies is right about CIR with regard to references. In this very thread you have repeatedly misquoted sources, and now at the Trump talk page you have again falsely characterized the Penn memo.[8] As I pointed out to you on this page the last time you cited this memo to “prove” the involvement of the Clinton campaign in the birther rumors: that memo says nothing of the sort. It says Obama is “not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in its values.” It advised to emphasize Hillary’s “American roots”. It says nothing at all about Obama’s birth place, and in fact specifies “We are never going to say anything about his background.” The Politifact article you cite, in its first sentence, actually refers to “Trump’s debunked claim that Hillary Clinton started the rumors questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” So this Penn memo does not even hint about birther claims - and yet you keep citing it as if he had proposed using them. In your “clarification” at the Trump talk page you say “Politico showed… how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn”. That is an absolute, flat-out lie - a word I do not use loosely. Are you going to remove your reference to the Penn memo as if it somehow started the birther rumor or proposed it to the Clinton campaign, or shall I challenge it there at the Trump talk page? --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

My explanation was as close to the source as one can get without copyvio. I wasn't the one who started that whole discussion, Melanie. I was simply trying to give equal consideration to an editor who challenged an edit. It escalated from there - I simply tried to dodge bullets and provide sources that explained how Trump was involved. He questioned the memo and emails, got his answers and publicly admitted Obama was a US citizen. How it all got to that point was omitted and should not have been. My response may not have been as detailed as what you prefer, but page 3 of the memo does speak to Obama's boyhood in Indonesia; that it exposes a very strong weakness regarding his roots and basic American values and culture, etc. Politifact included both the May 2016 Trump campaign statement and the 2007 strategy memo in their article because the Trump statement linked to that 2007 strategy memo. Who knows what Trump meant by "Clinton campaign" - how do you define it? He could have been referring to Clinton supporters, delegates, DNC attendees, the chain emails, Clinton aides, campaign staff and/or whatever else comprises the campaign. Actually, The Telegraph provided a bit more detail regarding the chain emails, and the actions that followed, including the statement: ...but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it. The sources covered it - our WP article did not - and it doesn't matter if it was "debunked" - we simply state the facts. The whole ordeal was covered by RS and became a big part of the Trump campaign; therefore, it warrants inclusion per NPOV. What was that you were saying about CIR? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I say what I said before: In your "clarification" at the Trump talk page you say “Politico showed… how the rumor began in connection with the 2008 Clinton campaign regarding Clinton aide, Mark Penn”. That is an absolute, flat-out lie. The emails among some Clinton supporters are another matter; there clearly were such emails, and although I very much doubt they thought the idea up themselves - I'm quite sure I had heard it earlier - they seem to be the earliest that reporters can find now in hindsight and so they are supported by RS. But THE MARK PENN MEMO DID NOT START THE BIRTHER RUMORS. Sorry for shouting, but I don't know why you continue to insist that his memo was somehow "how the rumor began". If you can drop that - apparently you refuse to revert it even though it is contradicted by your own sources, but if you can at least stop saying it - then maybe we can have a normal conversation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, ok - you win...the Politifact BS was wishy-washy...(I also misspelled it as Politico)...I WILL fix it...and you can yell all you want. I'm a little hard of hearing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I will strike my response there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Well, actually I won't, since you have replied to it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick reversion needed

Changes to the quotes from this edit and onwards need to be undone quickly before more edits are made. That will save a lot of work. I can't do it on my phone. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Hopefully they were done. I'll post on their talk page and explain. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Hemmer - Request help to reread the English translation and check that the page is ready for publication

MelanieN, I went to Peridon to review the English translation on the page about Pierre Hemmer: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Marsile/sandbox But I see that Peridon is no more active. Could you tell me another person who could help me in this proofreading ? Other tips for improving the page would also be welcome. Marsile (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marsile, and thanks for your note. Maybe User:JFG could help you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I could take a look, just not today. Incidentally, I probably met this guy back in the 90s… Sad that he died early :( — JFG ^talk 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a first comment for Marsile after a cursory look at Hemmer's bio: it looks a bit one-sided and promotional. English Wikipedia tends to have higher standards of notability than the French one, especially about businesspeople. I'm afraid the article as it stands would encounter opposition at new article review. If you can find more journalistic sources covering him or his work, aside from simple corporate portraits, that would help. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, thanks for the first remarks. Would it be possible to specify which passages are one-sided and promotional? If this is confirmed, it would be better to delete these passages. Marsile (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought, from a quick look at the article: see if you can find some sources in English. This is the English Wikipedia, and people want to see at least some sources they can read. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That too would help. To Marsile's question on which passages sound promotional, I'm afraid I'll have to channel Sarah Palin and say "All of'em, Katie"…[9] But don't let this discourage you, I'm sure there is space to compose an appropriate article. It would also help if you could link Hemmer to other people or entities that already have an English-language article. Otherwise he will look like an orphan. — JFG ^talk 08:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the proposals. As for the English translation, it is indeed difficult to find (and especially, the really interesting sources are in French or German). How do you do in these cases? Does the reference for some web sources to pages translated by tools like Google translation make sense? Another question (even for sources in French or German): there are some that are interesting, available only in libraries or archives, but not on the Internet. Swiss media and libraries are less advanced than Americans in digitizing publications. How to make English readers have access to sources? Marsile (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

JFG, would you agree to show me, with one or two examples of sentences from the article, how to make them more objective, less promotional? In addition, you propose that I link the article to other Wikipedia pages in English; OK, but am I allowed to link other articles to a draft page? Marsile (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump dossier GA nomination

Melanie, the article on the Trump dossier is incredibly one sided, plumbing the depths of leftist sourcing and e.g. quoting the rogue non-journalists at Buzzfeed for the document's searing importance (note, it's not imporrant unless there was collusion) without, it seems, a single op-ed or analyst or politician reaction quote in defense of Trump or skepticism that the document establishes collusion, while we quote. Long long ago I got into an endless debate wherein it was explaiend to me why it wasn't acceptable to mention a Forbes Sites piece from a think tank expert speaking slightly out of his circle of expertise to question the credibility of the analysis, and I was willing to abide by the opinions of others to exclude it, but now I come back and we've got hipster music writers and awful bloggers as fact-and-analysis sources, fresh conversations on the talk page where BullRangifer and Neutrality tag-team another editor into submission regarding a perfectly appropriate piece of sourced commentary, and it is very hard not to conclude there is an extreme double standard in play.

I urge you to withdraw as "co-nominator" of the Good Article application so long as this condition persists. Additionally I don't plan on 1000+ hours of Wikilawyering with BullRangifer and "Neutrality" over this issue because it's not my job, and because my time spent thus far seems to have been wasted as my comment was ignored—but IMO it is your job to judiciously withdraw your GA support. I say this in all due respect but I could not believe the state this article reached. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how Ben Smith (journalist) isn't a journalist, unless our entire page on him is incorrect. I don't see the "hipster music writers and awful bloggers" being cited - could you point out any examples? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Factchecker_atyourservice, how on earth have Neutrality and I "tag teamed" anything? Diffs please. Neutrality is a very experienced and respected sysop. We've both been here since before the dinosaurs went extinct. Don't make charges like that without evidence. AGF. Your whole approach to this is really off-putting. I tried to establish a collaborative relationship, showing how easy it is to make progress. All I got was ridicule. That poisoned the atmosphere, so I didn't reply. If you want to be taken seriously, then try honey, rather than vinegar. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow...I had no idea it was nominated for GA. I agree with Factchecker atyourservice. There is no way that article comes close to GA, and any reviewer who tries to undertake such a review before the issues are resolved...and promotes it as a GA will more than likely find themselves in the middle of a GAR shortly afterward. Just speaking frankly as a GA/FA reviewer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My co-nominating does not mean I think it is ALREADY a good article. I think it has potential to be. I agreed to co-nom because my past experience with the GA process is that a good reviewer will suggest lots of ways to improve the article. Even if it doesn't ultimately qualify as GA, it will be a better article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Our goal is to improve the article, and GA reviewers will see things that regular editors won't. If it qualifies, then great, but if not, then at least the article will be much better. Editors who are interested in such improvement are welcome to help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal criticism. BR, if you can't respect other editors, at least please respect my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Those editors who don't want the article to exist should seek pastures where their shit-spreading will lead to greener grass, rather than sabotaging our attempts to improve the article. Yes, Atsme, I'm talking about you. You have never gotten over the fact that the community rejected your attempts at a G10 speedy deletion and an AfD. You constantly include barbs and attacks wherever you go, often linking to the article, using links to my talk page and comments, etc. It's tiring. Your civil passive aggression is still disruptive and tendentious. It's still a personal attack, even when you don't name the person. Your endless circular and repetitive comments and undermining of RS hasn't worked. Being oh-so-sweet, with lots of emojis, may distract some from what you are doing, but it doesn't fool everyone. How about concentrating on actual editing, rather than filling talk pages? I can get wordy too, which is one reason I often ignore what you say and don't reply. It wouldn't help anyway. The project would be a better place if you were topic banned from all things Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BullRangifer: If you're going to criticize a fellow editor for "shit-spreading", that doesn't jibe well with your own advice of using honey rather than vinegar. Besides, your last sentence calling for a topic ban is out of line; you owe Atsme an apology. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We've got history, and she constantly reminds me of it by linking and ridiculing. She should just drop it and stop making fun of the article. She can be nice. I just wish she'd try it with me. There is always an attempt to attack and criticize, often in general terms that are not useful or fixable. Waving an NPOV flag is so general as to be unhelpful, especially since her interpretation of NPOV seems to differ from others' interpretations. Instead of placing a tag, which she'd like to leave there forever, it would be more helpful to get specific on the talk page. I've already offered her that advice. Will she take it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Our only history is that you were blocked for doing pretty much the same thing you're doing now, so you haven't learned a thing. The project would be better served if you would simply stop the PAs out of revenge, and drop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. I've been trying to be helpful and you simply don't recognize it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have stricken my ill-advised comments. Sorry about letting my feelings get the better of me. I would really like to establish a collaborative relationship with Atsme, because I know she can be nice. I've seen it with others. I just need specific suggestions, IOW "exact" wordings to work on. It would be easier if I could see we were working toward the same goal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The concerns have nothing to do with the article existing or not existing, and everything to do with NPOV. Melanie, surely you know that we don't nominate an article for GA review in an effort to improve it. We have Wikipedia:Peer_review for that purpose. I added the NPOV tag to the article and BullRangifer wrongfully removed it, adding a snarky edit summary. I want the tag replaced until the issues have been addressed. A scroll through the TP is a good place to start as the problems have been pointed out over and over again. Perhaps Masem can help you recognize the issues since I've been unable to do so in the past. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of complaining about “non-neutrality” and generalizations about the article being “one sided”, but rarely any specifics that we can actually discuss. For example, Factchecker’s vague complaints about “plumbing the depths of leftist sourcing” and “hipster music writers and awful bloggers” and “rogue non-journalists at Buzzfeed” are IMO not worth responding to. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see - just now in response to this discussion, or to the GA nomination, you decided to add a POV tag to the article. Probably because you knew that such a tag would quickfail a GA nomination. Nice try, but a little transparent. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Melanie - the article TP alone will quick fail the review. You know full well that I've pointed out the NPOV issues time and time again, and my efforts have been ignored. The entire article is a cherrypicked conspiracy theory based on unsubstantiated allegations. Read Politico and use your own judgment to clean-up the article. I'm still of the mind that WP:RECENTISM is another factor that will prevent that article from being promoted. It is not stable, and the allegations are unsubstantiated as pointed out in the Politico article. Better yet, read the Hoover Institution article which also lays it out pretty well. I'm not going debate this further...I'm worn out debating it. I believe you're an experienced enough editor to determine where the NPOV issues are in that article, and why RECENTISM is a problem that will prevent that article from being promoted. Our encyclopedia is NOTNEWS - we publish facts that will endure the test of time - I'd rather they not be conspiracy theories that result in egg on our faces. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to be associated with such an iffy conspiracy theory that surrounds the Steele dossier. When/if the allegations are proven, we'll have something encyclopedic to write about, but until then, it's...well, a conspiracy theory. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

At some point, you need to consider the possibility that your view of the situation may be incorrect and attacking RS, and editors that simply follow the guidelines, doesn’t work. Just a suggestion. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Atsme, I have no idea what you are talking about with "conspiracy theory", but don't bother to explain. Actually I have already concluded that it is premature to apply for GA status when we have been talking about so many changes and improvements to the article; at the rate we are editing I doubt if it would meet the "stable" criterion. I was on my way to so at the article talk page and recommend we withdraw the application, and resubmit it after we have finished making the improvements we have been talking about. In the meantime, if you want to point out SPECIFIC items in the article you think are NPOV or improperly sourced, we can look at them. On the other hand, "This whole article is NPOV and conspiracy theories and cherry picked and recentism and, and, I'm sure I can think of a few more" - that kind of thing is not helpful and will not be responded to. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And read the AP correction, Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.. which is what I attempted to explain several months ago. The pre-Steele information is still in the article, and doesn't belong there. As for my concerns about NPOV, you can start by correcting the lede, and work your way down. As far as I'm concerned, it has always been about getting the article right. Compare the AP correction to my comments in Nov 2017: the Steele dossier is what spawned the Trump-Russia dossier, [10], and [11]. You can move this info to the article TP if you want, and get it off your TP. I am willing to help prepare the article as a potential GAC, and remain confident that working together in a collegial environment will produce positive results. It's up to you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I invite you to read paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lede, which already spell out very explicitly that the Free Beacon had nothing to do with the Steele dossier. Also the text, which repeats explicitly that the Free Beacon had nothing to do with it and that (section title no less) "Research by Democrats produces dossier." Yes, it has always been about getting the article right. The article is more right than you apparently realize. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I did read it - it has no relevance to the Steele dossier, and shouldn't even be mentioned. There's also an entire section in the body: "Research funded by conservative website" - has nothing to do with the Steele dossier, so why include it? The only connection is Fusion GPS which, prior to contracting Steele, is nothing more than some other party needing opposition research. Maybe it belongs on the list of clients for Fusion GPS...or maybe it deserves a sentence or two in the article about the Repub primaries. It's neither encyclopedic nor notable - a one-time event. But let's not clutter up your TP with trivial matters. You have bigger fish to fry, and I don't want to take-up anymore of your time. I have more respect for what you do as an admin, so I'll make it a wrap by saying sweet dreams - tomorrow's another day (and I hope it's warmer than what it was today.) ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Neil's talk page, where I express something approaching outrage at your claim that I gave you an IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. You said we need to get the correction into the article that the Free Beacon did not contribute to the dossier. I pointed out that it is already in the article. Now what are you saying - that we should delete all references to the Free Beacon? Not only ignoring Reliable Source reporting, but leaving our readers wondering about what they might have heard, rather than explicitly exonerating the Free Beacon? That would not only violate half a dozen PAGs as you love to call them, it would be a disservice to our readers and an even bigger disservice to the Free Beacon. Good night yourself, I'm done with you. At least for now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I clearly stated......or maybe it deserves a sentence or two in the article about the Repub primaries and out of respect for you and your TP, I invited you to discuss further at the article TP. Then you respond with "something approaching outrage" and "I'm done with you"? Wow, Melanie. I have neither said anything nor have I done anything that should spark such a response. I choose not to edit under that kind of pressure. Good luck with the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, NOW you have more-or-less clarified that you want any mention of the Free Beacon removed. (At least I think that’s what you are now saying - it’s unclear as usual. Is that what you have been trying to say - that we should remove any mention of the Free Beacon from the article? Yes or no, please.) Your initial post - the one you said I responded to with IDIDNTHEARTHAT - seems to be saying, “look, here’s evidence that the Free Beacon didn’t fund it, the article ought to say so”. When I responded to what I thought you were saying, you could have just said (on my TP) “No, that’s not what I meant, I meant to remove it from the article entirely.” But you chose to go to Neil’s talk page and bash me. This kind of misunderstanding could be avoided if you would just state clearly what change or edit you think should be made - instead of posting a hint and expecting us to read your mind. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, what exactly are you referring to as "bashing"? Jiminy Cricket, accusing me of bashing you not only has a chilling effect, it's disheartening. I have no ill-will toward anyone, and I certainly don't bash editors. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, not fight with or bash other editors with whom I'm trying my damndest to collaborate in a collegial environment. Civil debate is healthy - it's how we achieve quality in our articles. Review my initial comments on Neil's page - they had nothing to do with you. My initial concern was over BullRangifer's behavior but he has since apologized to me - extended the olive branch and I accepted it with an open mind. I don't harbor grudges. When I went to NeilN it was for advice, not to get BR in trouble and I stated that clearly in my initial post. My concern was the GAC, the removal of the NPOV tag, and the issues at the article. When I referred Neil to your TP, it was about the AP update - period the end - it had nothing to do with you except that it happened to be on your TP, but for some reason you concluded otherwise. That's why I felt it was best for me to just not be involved in that article at all. As for my suggestion about Fusion's prior research on Trump, I'll be more specific - I was referring to removal from the lede but would not object if it was removed entirely from the article, OR reduced/rewritten into a brief explanation somewhere in the body. Its presence probably causes more confusion than it resolves, or at least, it perpetuates it. WP is longer lasting than the news reports which will eventually be forgotten and buried in archives. What we initially thought in the beginning that made the Steele dossier notable was the potential that the allegations about Trump colluding with the Russians were true, but after all this time, nothing has been proven as it relates to Trump. Ironically, the dossier has taken on a whole new direction because it was funded by the Clinton campaign, and now there are investigations into the FISA court filings, there have been several firings of upper echelon in the FBI and demotions of agents, including Comey, McCabe, Strzok, FBI attorney Lisa Page, Rybicki, FBI general counsel James Baker, and Bruce G. Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS). This is why it's important for editors to pay close attention to RECENTISM, and not get carried away with allegations published by news sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the discussions about keeping mention of the Free Beacon in the article are on the talk page and/or archives. It was the consensus that it was best to not only keep mention, but revamp that part to make it extremely clear that there was no connection between the funders (and even content) of that first phase of opposition research and the second phase, in which Steele produced the dossier. Why? Because of frequent confusion on the subject. It was often the target of deletions and discussion because of misunderstandings, and failure to mention it also created problems. When that keeps happening, something's wrong with the way we present the subject, so a revamping solved that problem.

Readers and editors find nearly all current mention (in RS) of the Free Beacon in connection with the dossier, and, especially in the beginning, there was even confusion in RS about the matter. The article is the primary place readers look for this information, not on the Free Beacon article. Therefore the logical place to clear up the confusion was in the history section. That has been done. It is now virtually impossible for a reader to be confused, so now we shouldn't see frequent deletion of that content, or, if it were missing, questions about why it isn't in the article. (It's also mentioned in the Free Beacon article, which is proper.)

I hope that clears up the matter and that we won't see anymore discussion about this matter from you. If you feel it's still poorly written in the article (it was), or still confusing, then any improvements are still welcome, but removing it is out of the question. You'd have to start an RfC to get that done, and that would be disruptive because we've already discussed it and decided on this approach. It's never good when an article contains ambiguous information. It should be clear, and it is....now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, what exactly are you referring to as "bashing"?  I am referring, of course, to this comment of yours addressed to BR: You might want to check-out MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine. There is no other way to interpret this comment, except that Melanie responded to your post with "the same ole IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine". Since I had in fact responded directly to what you said, this accusation made me angry. That’s the last I am going to say about the “bashing” matter. But I would ask you to ask yourself: why do people so often misunderstand or misinterpret what you meant to say? It’s because you don’t say clearly what you mean - in particular, what edits you are suggesting. For example, in this latest post - your fourth about the Free Beacon - you have finally said, for the first time, what edits you are actually suggesting (i.e. remove Free Beacon from the lede and trim or remove it elsewhere). If you had done that from the outset, there would have been no misunderstanding. I suggest, when you are commenting anywhere on Wikipedia: before hitting “Publish”, reread your note and see if it says clearly in plain English what you are actually suggesting about the article content. If not, add it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, Melanie, but I'm leaving it with you because this discussion is going nowhere fast, and you're an admin with tenure while I'm just a lowly volunteer who is as disposable as a Bic lighter, and probably worth less (note the space between the two words so you don't inadvertently misunderstand it to mean worthless). I was quite clear when I referred to the article TP, and I even used diffs dating back to Nov 8 2017, Nov 8 2017, and Nov 10 2017 for comparison to the most recent AP correction which was dated Feb 3, 2018. When I said "All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine." I was clearly referring to the past, or I would have said "All I'm getting" which would be the present. It's all about tense, Melanie, not being tense. I said nothing that was disparaging of or toward you when I pointed NeilN to the AP correction. In the interim, I've had to ask you once to strike a disparaging comment you made about me, and you were gracious enough to do so. I didn't make a scene about your unkind comment suggesting that I had a CIR issue or that you are now trying to make it appear that "people so often misunderstand or misinterpret" what I say - none of which is true, although there are a few occasions when that happens which makes your "so often" reference over-kill. I imagine you're dissing me because you're unhappy about the GAC issue, which I understand perfectly well - but keep in mind, it wasn't I who first brought it to your attention. Just a little FYI for future reference - I rarely encounter people who misunderstand what I say - I'm typically rather blunt, pretty damn transparent, and I don't pull any punches when something has to be said, but you can rest assured that when it happens, diffs will accompany my statements, or will be added upon request. What I have noticed is a slight correlation between those rare misunderstandings and Trump articles. Isn't that bizzarre? I attribute such misunderstandings to one or more of the following: (a) preconceived notions, (b) failure to AGF, (c) speed-reading and not checking diffs, (d) an opposing POV, (e) a CYA attempt and/or (f) a true misunderstanding, as rare as that may be...it happens to all of us. That's why I customarily ask...WTH? Happy editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: and @Atsme: I don't want to wade into your past dispute but I have continued the discussion of my criticisms back at the article talk page. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Another queerly named user

Hi,

I saw the thread on NeilN's talk page, and remembered that I saw this user the other day. Do you reckon its similarity to SoWhy is coincidental? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I suspect it's deliberate. But the user has not edited in more than a week, and that one edit was constructive, so it may be that nothing needs to be done. However, I'll leave that up to SoWhy. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Absent some evidence that they even know SoWhy from Adam (or Eve), I don't think we're going to outlaw the usernames BoWhy, DoWhy, GoWhy, HoWhy, LoWhy, MoWhy, NoWhy, PoWhy, and ToWhy. I nominate you to keep an eye on them and see if they show any undue interest in SoWhy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) As they say, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" I have no idea who this is or if this is even related to me, so let them just edit and if they are disruptive, it can be handled like any other case. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Stephon Clark

Thanks for returning to BLP/N. I have requested a close: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Other_types_of_closing_requests. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Seen

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/835646323 Will reply this evening. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegation of Rosneft deal

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&oldid=prev&diff=835647342

Needless to say, I don't agree with much of the reasoning. The Newsweek source is good, and an experienced and highly educated political reporter writing for Paste is a good source. Granted, it's not a deep going article. It was, like many articles, written the day after the dossier was published, so it's a quick run down. Therefore most uses are simply to document the allegations. The opinions are attributed to the authors. That's according to our policy that we DO document opinions, and we attribute any that are controversial. That the statements makes someone uncomfortable has zero meaning per NPOV. Censoring such content violates NPOV by not being a neutral editor, but allowing one's feelings to dictate and censor biased content. Neither sourcing nor content must be neutral, and we are supposed to present content as is, without changing the meaning, neutering it, or censoring it. They are very clearly formulated opinions. Okay, now I've said it, but I know that doesn't count for much around here. It's been deleted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been deleted pending discussion; you can still argue for its inclusion. To me it is UNDUE rhetoric. If they had just commented on the allegation, without saying "treason", I would probably not have objected. To me that kind of comment (unless made by someone highly authoritative) is over the line. And the fact that they made it the day after the dossier came out (I hadn't noticed that), before any supportive evidence had come in, when it was a pure hypothetical - that is yet another reason not to take their comments as seriously as from someone who had waited to see the evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't argue it. It would be fruitless anyway. (That 90% of the allegation has been proven is ignored.) I just explained that to Astme and I tagged you as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I removed the section while under discussion is that it twice suggests the sitting president is guilty of a death penalty crime in one of the most viewed articles on WP. Now, Trump my very well have committed treason. But, I thought it prudent to remove such charged claims until discussion was complete. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

one of the most viewed articles on WP. Let's not flatter ourselves. That article gets 1000 views on a good day. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, was thinking of the main Trump article. Probably gets 800 views a day by editors.:)O3000 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of the fact that Trump was not involved in any collusion. Carter Page was on his own so don't be spreading rumors and conspiracy theories. As for 90% proven, simple response - hogwash. The only thing proven is that Page went to Russia and met with an energy company exec who thought Page was an idiot. Try reading the sources I provided. If things truly were what you'd like them to be, Trump would have been indicted and impeached by now. So far, all that's happened are charges of lying to the FBI but you might also take a look into Mueller's past - it's not a very shiney one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

How can you possibly claim that as fact? O3000 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, wait, let's take the claims one at a time.

• Trump was not involved in any collusion. Just ask him! 0;-D That's not exactly a "fact", as in proven. We don't know for a fact that he was uninvolved in collusion, and anyhow you can't prove a negative. We have not yet seen any evidence that he WAS personally involved in collusion, so that's not a fact either. Nobody is saying that he was personally involved, and this article doesn't say or suggest he was personally involved. There is, however, plenty of evidence of connections, meetings, discussions, proposals between Trump associates/family members and Russian agents. A lot of that is documented and/or admitted to by the participants (although they all denied it at first for reasons they have never explained.) What Trump knew, and when he knew it, is a great unknown but is certainly something the special counsel is looking into.
• Carter Page was on his own Actually not. There is significant evidence, in the form of emails and so on, that he cleared his activities with members of the Trump campaign. And the fact that he went to Russia and spoke to a Rosneft executive IS a fact. In fact, if you believe Page's sworn testimony, that executive "may have mentioned" something very much like what the dossier said.
• If things truly were what you'd like them to be, Trump would have been indicted and impeached by now. That's not how these things work. They don't go that fast. The investigators take their time, gathering documents, getting testimony from lower level participants first, interviewing the principal last. If the principal is the president, even if they accuse him of crimes the precedent would be not to indict him. They would name him as an "unindicted co-conspirator" and make a report to Congress about possible impeachable offenses. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I possibly claim it as fact? Easy...

1. WaPo says: House Intelligence Committee Republicans say they have found no evidence that President Trump and his affiliates colluded with Russian officials to sway the 2016 election or that the Kremlin sought to help him
2. Vox Their key finding: Neither President Donald Trump nor anyone involved in his campaign colluded with Russia.
3. NYTimes House Intelligence Committee Republicans said on Monday that their investigation had found no evidence of collusion between Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia to sway the 2016 election.

Also in the Times article, Conaway added, “We disagree with the narrative that they were trying to help Trump.” All statements of fact result from a year long House Intelligence Committee investigation. It's not opinion, it's not fill-in-the-blanks, it's a conclusion that resulted in a statement of fact. If collusion was involved, it would have been mentioned in all the Carter stuff as well. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well of course the House committee failed to find evidence of collusion. They refused to question a couple dozen witnesses proposed by the Dems. In any case, their inability to find collusion does not make non-collusion a fact. I don’t know whether there was collusion or not, and real investigations continue. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Republicans on that House committee have about as much credibility as Trump tweeting "NO COLLUSION!" They have not even gone through the motions of pretending to carry out an actual investigation, and their "reports" do not come from the full committee or even all of the Republicans on the committee. And their chairman has been caught several times colluding with the White House so as to present White House positions and talking points as the committee's. So don't waste your time and ours with this kind of "evidence". As both O3000 and I have pointed out: We don't know if Trump colluded or not. Maybe time will tell. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not our job to pass judgment on the decisions made by the Senate or House of Representatives. Congress is the legislative branch, so let's hope they know the law. In the interim, a year has passed and Mueller is still trying to find that needle in a haystack and all he's come up with so far are chiggers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Chiggers? Meuller has leveled over 100 charges in 19 indictments, and we have no idea what else he has as he, correctly, doesn’t give news conferences. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And now Michael Cohen has been raided (with orders from Trump appointees), as well as Fox News headquarters. Please pass the popcorn. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

To understand the significance of the FBI raid on Trump attorney Michael Cohen, imagine multiple units of the FBI simultaneously breaking down the doors of Michael Corleone's consigliere Tom Hagen's office, home and hotel room. The real target is not Hagen, it's Corleone. IOW, Trump really needs diapers right now.

Feds Are Treating Michael Cohen Like a Mob Lawyer -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

More of the same conspiracy theorizing? I think the bigger concern for the American people is the fact that government took such an action considering Cohen has been extremely cooperative. Seems very KGBish. Oh, and rumor has it that Cohen borrowed some of Hillary's hammers and BleachBit before the raid. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of ALLEGATION. Part 1

Let's do some analysis of the actual ALLEGATION and see what has been proven to have happened, nearly so, and what's still unproven. This is MelanieN's talk page, so we don't have to worry about normal article talk page limitations or OR, so let's brainstorm:

• That Page had secretly met Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in Moscow, together with a "senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN." That Sechin offered Trump a 19% stake in Rosneft (worth about $11 billion) in exchange for lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election. That Page confirmed, on Trump's "full authority", that he intended to lift the sanctions. (Dossier, pp. 9, 30-32)

The Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is an invaluable resource. There are plenty of RS used there.

I'll try to break this down into its elements. Others may see other ways to do it, and you can try your hand at this further down:

It is ALLEGED...

1. That Page had secretly met

2. Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin in Moscow, together with a "senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN."

3. That Sechin offered Trump a

4. 19% stake in Rosneft (worth about $11 billion)

5. in exchange for

6. lifting the sanctions against Russia after his election.

7. That Page confirmed, on Trump's "full authority",

8. that he intended to lift the sanctions.

Analysis of ALLEGATIONS

1. Accurate: This first meeting in July 2016 (Page spoke at two meetings on July 7-8[12]) was secret because Page initially denied it. It occurred with the permission of the Trump campaign, and he would travel as a private person (plausible deniability).[13]

2. Inaccurate(?) about the persons (not events): He denied meeting with Sechin, but, under oath, admitted to meeting with Sechin's deputy, Andrey Baranov, thus he met with Sechin's representative, a difference that is not significant. Different person, but same event as in allegation. I wrote Inaccurate(?)", but that is based on the discrepancy between the dossier and Page. If Page is lying, then the dossier may actually be accurate on this point. Since he has a record for being "less than honest...", and Steele has a record for honest work, whom should we believe? I'll leave that up to readers...

3. Unknown to us. Mueller investigating and may know.

4. Accurate about events: A sale had to happen to make this part of the deal work: "And when he was asked whether Baranov had discussed 'a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft,' Page testified that 'he may have briefly mentioned it.'" (quoting MelanieN)

The well-publicized sale happened on December 7, 2016, just one month after Trump was elected on November 8, and Carter Page made another trip to Moscow the next day, December 8. The amount matched what the dossier describes.

5. A matter of interpretation: The public actions that followed indicate a quid pro quo arrangement appears to have occurred, so this can be interpreted as an accurate claim.

6. Accurate: Trump repeatedly expressed a desire to lift the sanctions. The Trump campaign even caused the GOP to change its party platform position regarding Ukraine. All these actions were in harmony with this allegation and other allegations in the dossier. Several connect lifting sanctions and siding with Russian aggression against Ukraine. Trump agreed and promised both.

7. Accurate: Although supposedly traveling as a private person, he was still Trump's foreign policy advisor and thus represented Trump, so he could speak accurately about Trump's desires and intentions. He reported back to the Trump campaign about his meetings.[14]

8. Accurate: See point 6.

That's my parsing of this allegation. The only parts which are unknown/interpretation are 3 & 5, and Mueller may have confirmed them. The rest is proven fact. MelanieN can fill in more details.

In July 2016 the deal was allegedly negotiated, and what began to happen right after the election fits the allegation's narrative exactly. The only part left for Trump to do is to lift the sanctions, but Trump has been stymied in doing that, so that $11 billion still awaits, according to RS, at its last known location, in a Cayman Islands account.

My verdict: This allegation is largely confirmed. Enough has been proven true that it is reasonable to believe the remaining two points (3 & 5) are also true and may likely be proven. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

RS opinions The allegation of a 19% privatized stake in Rosneft, in exchange for lifting sanctions and dropping "Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue", has been described by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen in Newsweek as a quid pro quo deal that "colloquially, if not in the legal sense,... is called treason". In Paste, Jacob Weindling described this deal as a "potential scandal so big, words don't exist to convey it." He further stated: "I want to take a moment to stress this potential revelation. In exchange for dropping sanctions that were levied for invading an ally [Ukraine], the president of the United States would receive a personal stake in a Russian oil company. Treason doesn't even begin to describe it."

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

What you're doing looks alot like plotting out a conspiracy theory based on your own editorializing with absolutely no evidence to support it. It's purely speculation. Quite frankly, it looks very much like OR motivated by POV. Melanie, how is this not a vio of NPOV & OR, and how does it meet the requirements of V? Is this what's been going on at the article? ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, try to AGF and be more helpful. Your failure to AGF causes you to be negative and write a bunch of outright crap above. Every.Single.Word.Of.It!!

Read the second sentence. That defines the context for what follows. You act like someone who walked uninvited into someone's living room, thinking it was a public bar, and then complained about the music and service. Sheesh! Context matters.

This is not for the article, and article talk page rules do not govern here. Neither do OR, SYNTH, or a whole lot of other rules, but AGF does. This is based on what RS have revealed, and is an exercise to help us understand what's really happening. If you don't want to learn and be better informed, you don't have to engage: "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." - George Bernard Shaw

Stop and think about what you've written above. It doesn't apply. The parts which we don't know are identified as such ("The only parts which are interpretation are 3 & 5"). OR is what happens in articles. Here we are exploring possibilities. The parts we know are confirmed are literally confirmed by RS. Just because I'm not including them here, and because Fox News refuses to report those facts (so you wouldn't know about them) doesn't mean they don't exist.

That you ask "Is this what's been going on at the article?" shows you don't read the article, its sources, or stay informed. You're just hiding in your Fox News filter bubble and only come out to attack and disrupt. If you don't have anything good to say, then try being quiet, especially about things of which you are ignorant or misinformed by your unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest adherence to BLP policy, BullRangifer. It applies everywhere on WP. What you just did has nothing to do with me AGF and everything about you making unsupported allegations against a BLP. Melanie should hat or even redact your unsupported POV "plots" as they are polemic, especially the things you said about Cohen. When/if evidence comes forward to support the allegations and it is published in RS, then it is no longer considered vitriol or a violation of OR, NPOV and BLP policy. I'm not sure if the things you've said against a BLP are protected by TP guidelines. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, context means everything, but since you're ignoring it, I added even more clear reminders that these are ALLEGATIONS which have been commented on in RS, and many of which have been proven true. Try to be collaborative. Barring that, if you're just going to cause trouble, why not play somewhere else? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, they are documented allegations, so whether they are "unsupported" or not is rather irrelevant, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That many of them are supported by events and RS doesn't hurt at all. I know this doesn't fit with your Fox News filter bubble conspiracy theories, but the rest of us base our POV on RS.

Just to satisfy you, I'll add the sources that are used for the allegation. Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand PUBLICFIGURE or BLP policy as it relates to your unsupported conspiracy theories and comparisons to criminal behavior. You've been advised. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jimbo Wales

• Should the Trump–Russia dossier article allow any space for the POV that Trump might not have conspired with the Russians?

• You have been mentioned derogatorily: Obnoxious and dishonest MelanieN

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamantius (journal)

Hi, I'm curious why you think this is significantly different from the deleted version. There's an added "reference" about the meaning of Origen's name (not the subject of the article), two other "references" are to the homepage of the journal (not really a significant improvement either, I'd say), and an infobox was added. In all, to me this doesn't seem like changes that justify a rejection of G4. This has been at AfD twice, I'd hate to waste more editor time on it with a third AfD. Perhaps you can have a second look? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Randykitty, I interpret "significantly different" pretty literally. My understanding is that I am not supposed to make a judgment on whether it is better, or whether it would pass a new AfD, just whether it is pretty much the same article as the one that got deleted. Per WP:G4, the G4 criterion does not apply to "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This article is very different from the previous one. It is organized differently, contains significantly more information, and makes plausible claims of notability. As you say, the references are weak and it might well get deleted a third time (and probably salted if it is), but we're not supposed to make that kind of judgment via the speedy deletion process. Thanks for your note but I'm going to stick with my call. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Part of the text is almost verbatim and the rest is just re-worded. Unless somebody re-creates an article from a copy they saved somewhere, I guess that G4 can be abolished. Anyway, this is of course within your discretion as an admin. I'm just going to remove this from my watchlist, let somebody else deal with it, I've long since given up on the idea that WP one day... Oh well, let me stop ranting here... :-) Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm? Certainly the version which was deleted in 2009 was virtually identical to the version which was deleted in 2015 (and could have been G4'ed). However, the current version created in 2017 differs greatly in content from those two. The older versions listed the people who run the journal, the new one doesn’t; the older ones listed the six universities which founded it, the new one doesn’t; the new one describes the structural outline of the journal, the old ones didn’t. I don’t know why we are getting such different impressions, but your mileage apparently varies quite a bit from mine. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what you are saying is that the current article mainly differs from the old version by omission of several things (people who run the journal, founding universities), while only adding a trivial description of the journal structure. Yup, I do get a different impression here. But this discussion is not getting us anywhere. Let someone take it to AfD. Or let it linger, it's not like it would be the only garbage that we allow to stay. Unwatchlisting this talk page, too. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Linkrot

I know that some editors add archive.org links immediately to every single reference, even though they are not dead. I personally think this practice bloats articles, and that we should wait until it is deadlink=yes, but I want to know the current consensus on the matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's been debated multiple times at different venues, including Village Pump [15] and various talk pages, without a decision. I agree with you, and I have several times asked someone to revert an "archive everything" edit - which they have always done. That one action can increase the size of an article by 20% or more. At some articles we have consensus not to do it, see Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #25. There is no Wikipedia-wide consensus one way or the other. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump and JCPOA

Thanks for giving me some days to resolve the issues. Thanks to Twofingered Typist, the article is now copy edited. I also tried to fix the flaws in the article, As far as possible. I would be glad to know your opinion in the current situation. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Saff V., thanks for fixing those problems. I am not a New Page Reviewer so I won't be officially reviewing it. But I do see some needs: the lead section needs to be revised, so that it introduces and summarizes the material in the text, and the title should probably be changed (as several people suggested) since JCPOA means nothing to most people. I will see what I can do about the lead later today, and then we can discuss the title at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for attention. If JCPOA doesn't make any sense, There is any problem to change it. As it suggested, Iran deal is the best alternative, although it needs discussion. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPG Violation Shooting of Stephon Clark

Melanie, my dear: You know you can always come to my personal talk page or ping me here to share your views about anything you feel. I'd welcome hearing how you think that ignoring the BLP/N discussion is constructive. You've behaved very uncharacteristically throughout this discussion, in particular by enabling some of the worst talk page nonsense I've seen in quite a while from a couple of the editors there. I'm going to ask you just to strike your inappopriate post on the article talk page. It doesn't belong there, and if you want to exchange views on this I will do so here or on my own talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I purposely included it on the talk page. I wanted it to be a public warning. You are the one "ignoring the BLP/N discussion". I said it is time to drop the stick, and I meant it. However, if you think you can make a case about who is ignoring or misinterpreting the BLP/N discussion, you can do it here; that at least will not prolong the situation at the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want a public warning, you violate PAG's? Really? And how does the concept of "public warning" fit into Wikipedia? Is it a form of shaming that's designed to punish an editor you disagree with? Do we post punitive attacks and misrepresentations on article talk pages now?

Riddle me this: Why did the closer state [ http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&diff=prev&oldid=836940921 that he expected an RfC would be necessary to sort out this content]. Why would you tell me to bring a content dispute to your personal talk page? That's another backwards move. It really looks like you lost your temper, not that such things don't happen even to better folks than you and me, and blew off steam repeatedly on the article talk page. Well that is not cool and once you simmer down, I hope you'll do the right thing and get that off the article talk page. What you've actually done is to ignore all of the discussion from uninvolved editors on BLPN who reject your analysis of the situation. And as for personally disparaging and misrepresenting SPECIFICO for the sake of "public display" -- well, all that is likely to happen is that you will have ended up enabling a few of the least collaborative and least thoughtful and least policy-aware editors in WP to go on and behave similarly on other articles. And that's not really a feather in your cap. So please reflect and do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The closer may have said that at AN, but he did not say it in his close. In fact, in his close he said that a fresh discussion would only be needed "if ultimately the decision is not to go with the previous line included in the article." And then when he was asked to clarify what he meant about an RfC, he came to the article talk page and said: Hi, I apologise if this was unclear.my intentions when referring to an RfC is where "local" consensus cannot be obtained - in this case, if a discussion here can't reach an useful conclusion, then move it over to an RfC. I didn't think an RfC here was automatically needed, especially due to the existing discussion on a high-traffic noticeboard. Mdann52 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC) I know that you saw that, because you replied to it. As it turns out, the discussion DID reach a useful conclusion, the decision WAS to go with the previous line included in the article, so as per the closer nothing further needs to be done. And IMO this is not a content dispute; this is a behavior issue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Help please

Sorry to bother you. I have a requested move at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Requested_move_20_April_2018. Could you please comment on my move request? Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but it looks like that's already been closed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR notice

Where's that template for the ArbCom 1RR thing? That user we reverted needs one on their talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs one, but I haven't done that before and I'm just heading out the door. I left a general message on their talk page. Maybe ask NeilN or Oshwah? --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That'll work. We can't WP:BITE newcomers, yada yada. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

augur/argue

"The fact that he is now trying to re-litigate that situation by blatantly misrepresenting my input does not argue well for a relaxation of his sanctions." :) No biggie, of course. --Doncram (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Well, I actually did mean "argue," as in "provide an argument for" or "state the case for". But you're right, "augur," as in "foretell" or "predict the outcome of", also works. When I make a word do a lot of work like that, I always pay it extra. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you dooble doun on your unconventional parlancee, that's just how u rule. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50