| Revision as of 01:03, 12 April 2019 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,275 edits →Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen "Future employability": reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:13, 12 April 2019 edit undoMitchellhobbs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,042 edits →Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen "Future employability"Next edit → | ||
| Line 313: | Line 313: | ||
| : In this case, and I haven't been following very closely, it appears that RS are paying attention and commenting, so we may need to add it. In most cases involving politically-motivated boycotts, such as when Republicans or Democrats target the opposition to make life hard for them (both sides do it), the person's personal integrity ends up being their best defense. | : In this case, and I haven't been following very closely, it appears that RS are paying attention and commenting, so we may need to add it. In most cases involving politically-motivated boycotts, such as when Republicans or Democrats target the opposition to make life hard for them (both sides do it), the person's personal integrity ends up being their best defense. | ||
| : If an otherwise honest person is targetted by a boycott, it only has a temporary effect and no real effect for future employment possibilities, since employers understand what's going on and ignore the smoke and noise. They know the person is honest and good, so they may hire them. By contrast, for people who are associated with nastiness, corruption, lying, etc, IOW nearly all those whom Trump has chosen to hire and associate with (he's always been this way), their poor reputation is well-deserved and a boycott just serves to put a magnifying glass up to their atrocious actions and bad character qualities. Many are literal criminals who have been convicted or are about to be. In such a case, the boycott may have a strong effect, as employers will look at the situation and think "Do I really want my company associated with someone who did those things, who has been rightly accused of those crimes, and who has been associated with Trump?" Wise employers will say "No way." -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC) | : If an otherwise honest person is targetted by a boycott, it only has a temporary effect and no real effect for future employment possibilities, since employers understand what's going on and ignore the smoke and noise. They know the person is honest and good, so they may hire them. By contrast, for people who are associated with nastiness, corruption, lying, etc, IOW nearly all those whom Trump has chosen to hire and associate with (he's always been this way), their poor reputation is well-deserved and a boycott just serves to put a magnifying glass up to their atrocious actions and bad character qualities. Many are literal criminals who have been convicted or are about to be. In such a case, the boycott may have a strong effect, as employers will look at the situation and think "Do I really want my company associated with someone who did those things, who has been rightly accused of those crimes, and who has been associated with Trump?" Wise employers will say "No way." -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *:Thanks it helps me to understand. Hey while I have you on the line can you look at ] legal section and tell me what you think, no rush not trying to take your time away ~ thanks again ~ mitch ~ ] (]) 01:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:13, 12 April 2019
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| A basic citation template I like to use. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Here is a basic citation template I like to use:
I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date.
|
- "When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual." -- BullRangifer
- "Claims made with misleading evidence or no evidence whatsoever--especially in political contexts--should always be referred to as 'false' when they are utterly unfounded. If any evidence ever emerges for Seth Rich's involvement--or for any captive koalas--then another term should be considered." -- FatGandhi 15:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- "I think this idea that there is no truth is the thread that will run through the rest of the Trump presidency, as it has his entire candidacy and his presidency so far." -- Nicolle Wallace
- "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- "For the 'whataboutism' thing to work, you need an actual 'about' to 'what'." -- Calton 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." -- David Atkins
- "My 'attitude', and that of Misplaced Pages (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters..." -- AndyTheGrump
- "The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Misplaced Pages purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy." -- Guy
 Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,TB, RS stash |
"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
-- BullRangifer. From WP:NEUTRALEDITOR
| Saved | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
Trump's dubious relationship to truthWe 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. 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):
User:MastCell/QuotesUser:MastCell/Quotes Awesome! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) ALLEGED interference? SMH!!How is it possible that we allow people to edit political articles who ignore the following facts? They should be topic banned. Allied foreign intelligence agencies were spying on Russians, not on the Trump campaign, and they overheard Russians discussing how the Trump campaign was illegally working with them to sabotage Hillary & steal the election. That alarmed our allies, as it should. What else should they have done but report it to the FBI? They did the right thing. These editors reveal their lack of competence here: SMH! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Sergei MillianWe don't mention Sergei Millian (Sergei Kukut) at all, and yet he has been identified as the Dossier's Source D (and E), and many RS have discussed him and his proven and unproven roles in the Trump-Russia affairs and dossier (as Source D/E). Articles which mention him by name in connection with the dossier (after the release of the dossier) and/or just as Source D/E (both before and after release of the dossier) are fair game in this article. RS reveal that his Trumpian tendency to hyperbole and self-promotion have rendered him an unwitting "loose lips" witness, similar to Papadopoulos, Giuliani, etc. Such people are very useful witnesses, much to Trump's chagrin. Later, when their revealings are seen as embarrassing, they try to deny, downplay, and even scrub the information, but history usually reveals they have exposed facts that should have been kept hidden, at least from the viewpoint of the Trump administration. They have thus placed themselves firmly in the center of Mueller's net for potential witnesses. There is likely enough for an article about him, so I'm including a few articles from before release of the dossier.
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC) DossierHi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?
As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Some questions for Trump supportersI don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |
Please read the whole thing before you start. -- Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Kirstjen Nielsen "Future employability"
I hear what you are saying ~ I have not had the chance to research Maggie Haberman ~ I hope to learn a lot from you ~ you sound like a very well educated person and I am always looking to learn but BLP seems to be a hot spot for me. I am only trying not to curve peoples judgments about a living person ~ especially one who was caught of guard by losing her job ~ thanks again ~ Mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mitchellhobbs, I've been here since 2003, and got an account in 2005, so I've seen a bit here, and my fingerprints and wordings are in a number of our most important policies. Our job is not to protect people, but to document what RS say. In cases of doubt, we tend to do some sort of protection, such as not including negative information that is trivial and not covered by RS, but only by gossip sources. We are especially protective of children.
- For really negative allegations that are covered by multiple RS, even when false and libelous, we are required to include (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE) such information (failure to do so would be whitewashing and a serious violation of editorial neutrality, which is what NPOV is about). We must also include their denials, even when they are self-serving lies. (Criminals always deny.) Including denials is my contribution to that policy.
- In this case, and I haven't been following very closely, it appears that RS are paying attention and commenting, so we may need to add it. In most cases involving politically-motivated boycotts, such as when Republicans or Democrats target the opposition to make life hard for them (both sides do it), the person's personal integrity ends up being their best defense.
- If an otherwise honest person is targetted by a boycott, it only has a temporary effect and no real effect for future employment possibilities, since employers understand what's going on and ignore the smoke and noise. They know the person is honest and good, so they may hire them. By contrast, for people who are associated with nastiness, corruption, lying, etc, IOW nearly all those whom Trump has chosen to hire and associate with (he's always been this way), their poor reputation is well-deserved and a boycott just serves to put a magnifying glass up to their atrocious actions and bad character qualities. Many are literal criminals who have been convicted or are about to be. In such a case, the boycott may have a strong effect, as employers will look at the situation and think "Do I really want my company associated with someone who did those things, who has been rightly accused of those crimes, and who has been associated with Trump?" Wise employers will say "No way." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks it helps me to understand. Hey while I have you on the line can you look at Talk:LPL Financial legal section and tell me what you think, no rush not trying to take your time away ~ thanks again ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)