just starting out here Bought the farm (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Bought the farm. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bought the farm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Bought the farm. I see you are new here; welcome! You do need to understand Wikipedia's principles in order to edit here. The most important is neutrality. That means that we must not say things in Wikipedia’s voice that are not neutral. If we are saying something derogatory or negative, or for that matter if we are praising something, we must only do so to the extent that we can credit that actual wording to a source. It also means that we can only use Reliable Sources, sources that have editorial control (in other words not blogs or opinion pieces) and have a reputation for accuracy in reporting (in other words not like the National Enquirer which routinely makes stuff up). In your recent edits to Trump Derangement Syndrome, you cited unreliable sources, and your own entry included judgmental terms in Wikipedia’s voice ("noting the numerous calls for impeachment, the media’s coordinated editorial attacks and the continued outrage on the left while asking a critical question that few have raised," "the hysterical and hypocritical media coverage by CNN and the New York Times"). These edits have been removed. But if you feel they have merit and belong in the article, you can go to the article’s talk page, Talk:Trump Derangement Syndrome, and offer revised wordings, or your arguments for why the material should be included in the article. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if other people agree with you, the material will be used. If you have questions or comments for me, you can put them here; I will see them. Your comments about the edits you want to include should go at the article talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC) |
Note that the wording of the barnstar admits and encourages a battleground mentality. That's not good. We should just follow what RS say, and that will usually be "anti-Trump" and factual. That's just the way it works. At other times and with other presidents it might be otherwise. He just happens to be on the wrong side of facts much of the time, and since RS document that, it appears they are being "anti-Trump", when they are just defending facts.
To help you understand why this is the case, here are just a few of the myriad RS (I have saved literally hundreds of very RS on the subject) which document Trump's dubious relationship to truth (completely off-the-charts, beyond anything fact checkers have ever encountered):
Sources
|
---|
|
Trump's falsehoods |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Trump's falsehoods[edit]
As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks,[2][3][4][5][6] and experience teaches that, quoting David Zurawik, we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards"[7] because he's a "habitual liar".[8] In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".[9][10][5] Fact checkers have kept a close tally of his falsehoods, and, according to one study, the rate of false statements has increased, with the percentage of his words that are part of a false claim rising over the course of his presidency.[5] According to The New York Times, Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office,[2] 1,318 total in his first 263 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" political analysis column of The Washington Post,[11] and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day.[12] After 558 days in office, the tally was at 4,229 false or misleading claims, and it had risen to an average of 7.6 per day from 4.9 during Trump's first 100 days in office.[13] Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."[14] Kessler also wrote: "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered ... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."[3] Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."[15] Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media.[16] By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.[16] Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims.[17][18][19][20] When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,[21][22][23] Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".[24] Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."[25] Author, social scientist, and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research."[26] She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".[27] In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."[28] David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true.[29][30] Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York.[31] The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses.[32] Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving[33] and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."[34] Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement;[35][36] that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";[37][38][39] that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;[40][41] and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".[42][43][44] A poll in May 2018 found that "just 13 percent of Americans consider Trump honest and trustworthy".[45] The Editorial Board of The New York Times took this telling sideswipe at Trump when commenting on the unfitness of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court: "A perfect nominee for a president with no clear relation to the truth."[46]
Fact checking Trump[edit]Trump's incessant attacks on the media, reliable sources, and truth have kept an army of fact checkers busy, the latter having never encountered a more deceptive public person. Tony Burman wrote: "The falsehoods and distortions uttered by Trump and his senior officials have particularly inflamed journalists and have been challenged — resulting in a growing prominence of 'fact-checkers' and investigative reporting."[52] Professor Robert Prentice summarized the views of many fact checkers:
The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:
NOTE: Many of the sources above are older. The situation has not improved, but is rapidly getting much worse, as described by Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ashley Parker: "President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren't true."[70] As Trump rapidly accelerates the rate of his false statements, one suspects he is following the advice of his friend and advisor, Steve Bannon:
References
|
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Inline citations are really not needed on talk pages. If you want to mention a source for something you're saying, just put it in plain text or use a normal hyperlink. Adding the <ref> tags just hides your references at the bottom of the talk page and makes things confusing, especially if that discussion isn't the bottom-most talk section. If for some reason you feel you must still use the ref tags, please at least insert ((Reflist-talk)) in your text in order to contain the ref list. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I notice that you often ping other editors, and that's okay, but I fear that it often isn't working as intended. This is one example where it won't work. The ping and signature must happen in the same edit. If you want to add a ping to a previously saved comment, erase the old sig and sign again. Then it should work. Otherwise, as long as your sig is fresh, the pings you have just included should work. I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 06 October 2018 (UTC) |
BullRangifer, maybe it's time 4u to make it easy onn yourself??? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 09:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking over your contributions and it looks like you are spending a lot of time doing what we call "point of view (POV) pushing", that is, editing with an agenda of promoting a certain point of view. New users often come in with the false impression that Wikipedia needs people to advocate their points of view. We don't. We actually need the opposite...editors who are able to put their personal views aside and edit in a neutral manner that reflects what independent "Reliable Sources" say about a subject. You also seem to be using talk pages as a forum for political arguments rather than a space for discussing specific improvements to the article. If you continue in this vein you will quickly find yourself banned from editing articles about American Politics. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
NO! I object to a formal thang I will but I am learning the editing. It seems preview is not the actual PREVIEW in my experience. bye ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are banned for three months from editing any page, including talk pages, or making any edits related to the topic of American Politics post-1932, broadly construed.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAPDS and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal against the ban, you may do so via the procedure outlined here, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your great effort in fighting against anti-Trump bias. 1.136.108.0 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
I have blocked you for one week for your edits to Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts. An administrator, Drmies, imposed a topic ban on you related to "American Politics post-1932, broadly construed" and this includes talk pages. This talk page is definitely an American Politics page. You must stay away from post-1932 American Politics entirely, everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
endorse TBAN amd block Read the Barnstar thread above this and now I'm all het up. Clearly, clearly the TBAN is appropriate, if not sufficient due to the battleground behavior. I am doubtful that it will do the trick.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Remember to log in and only use your "Bought the farm" account. Using multiple accounts, in the manner you are doing, is strongly discouraged. It's confusing and your contribution history is scattered. We need to have ONE place where we can always contact you, and know that you will be notified. There are other issues connected to using IPs which make it harder to deal with them, so please remember to log in. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. A dozen edits per day per article generally won't be a problem, but 50 minor edits should be compressed in some way. It may be useful to write/draft consecutive changes offline, e.g. in Notepad, and then copy the section you edited back to Wikipedia to publish changes. Making a lot of edits is not necessarily disruptive as page histories are flexible, but it unfortunately clogs up watchlists. If you have any questions regarding edit previews, please ask. Thanks and happy editing. wumbolo ^^^ 22:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Bought the farm, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to United States energy independence have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Your addition to United States energy independence has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop with the rhetoric on the Smollett page. It isn't constructive. The page will be updated appropriately as new information comes out.
This page is 3x under discretionary sanctions. US Politics, BLPs, and race. If you continue in your current fashion you are likely to face sanctions, including topic bans or site bans. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, per above discussion, you are already topic banned from American Politics. This topic certainly qualifies. I suggest you stop editing this topic immediately before you receive further sanctions. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
neoterism - is a newly invented word or phrase : the introduction of new expressions. a newly invented word or phrase. A dictionary may have helped you out with that. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
CITATION:
User:Bought the farm - Wikipedia articles should (with some exceptions) be written for general readers, and so should be written in language that will be commonly understood. Although I guessed what is meant by a neoterism, it was only an accurate guess as to what it meant, and neither an AFC reviewer nor a general reader should have to look up a word or rely on educated guessing to read the lede sentence of an article. It is not a good idea to be insulting to AFC reviewers by suggesting that they use a dictionary. You may treat this note as a formal caution that incivility may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement when it is in the area of American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You may resubmit the draft, and I will recuse from re-reviewing, or you may ask for the opinions of other reviewers at the Teahouse, or, as an autoconfirmed editor, you may move the draft into article space if you are ready to defend it in a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you received a DS alert about US politics in early October and then
Less than 7 weeks have elapsed, and I'm concerned about the POV nature of your editing in these areas. When folks fire right back up after expiration of a block/ban that's called WP:Gaming the system. Since I'm not asking for formal action, I'm not going to assemble diffs now. Just please work harder to edit as though you wanted to make a neutral encyclopedia, without a dog in the fight.
For one example, shame on those surly non-clappers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
One of your additions to the above article was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. Revision deletion has now been performed. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia, or ytou risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Democratic Plantation, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Democratic Plantation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Democratic Plantation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely per this ANI discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC).