| Revision as of 05:07, 24 December 2020 editPackMecEng (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,500 edits →Slow as Christmas!!← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:59, 1 January 2021 edit undoOsomite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,915 edits →Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *Yay, thank you! Marry Christmas & happy new year to you as well! ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC) | *Yay, thank you! Marry Christmas & happy new year to you as well! ] (]) 05:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying == | |||
| I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. You are acting like a bully. | |||
| Based only upon you opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body." | |||
| Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the ]. | |||
| You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem? | |||
| Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable? | |||
| You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it. | |||
| Here is the article, check it out: | |||
| * {{cite news |last=Elfrink |first=Tim |title='Do you regret at all, all the lying you've done?': A reporter's blunt question to Trump goes unanswered |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/14/trump-lying-huffpost-date-video/ |date=August 14, 2020 |work=] |access-date=December 31, 2020 }} | |||
| Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.) | |||
| And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements. | |||
| And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here. | |||
| It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alertr on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on ] & ]." Gee, you left out ]. | |||
| And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth. | |||
| About ], a "rule" is "material added to Misplaced Pages must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source. | |||
| About ], the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Misplaced Pages is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability. | |||
| About ]. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick. | |||
| About ], the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally ], ] & ]. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Misplaced Pages guidance. | |||
| I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made ]. | |||
| Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary? | |||
| PS For the record I will put this on the ] talk page | |||
| ] ] 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' | |||
| You have shown interest in post-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 ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
| For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. 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. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| Not saying anything is wrong, just a standard awareness note for ] topic areas. ] ] 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:59, 1 January 2021
 Archives |
Slow as Christmas!!
 |
- Yay, thank you! Marry Christmas & happy new year to you as well! PackMecEng (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying
I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. You are acting like a bully.
Based only upon you opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body."
Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the WP:MOSLEAD.
You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem?
Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable?
You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it.
Here is the article, check it out:
- Elfrink, Tim (August 14, 2020). "'Do you regret at all, all the lying you've done?': A reporter's blunt question to Trump goes unanswered". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2020.
Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.)
And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements.
And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here.
It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alertr on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on WP:TRUTH & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." Gee, you left out WP:TENDENTIOUS.
And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth.
About WP:TRUTH, a "rule" is "material added to Misplaced Pages must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Misplaced Pages is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability.
About WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally WP:MOSLEAD, WP:TRUTH & WP:RGW. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Misplaced Pages guidance.
I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made .
Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary?
PS For the record I will put this on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump talk page
Osomite 07:59, 1 January 2021 (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 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 Misplaced Pages'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.
Not saying anything is wrong, just a standard awareness note for WP:ACDS topic areas. Osomite 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)