Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place for personal attacks and disparagement of other editors, and article talk pages must be kept clean of such nonsense. Please review WP:TPO

Editing others' comments
...
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism...

SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's comments may be considered rude and cause more disruption than simply leaving them alone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case, thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing personal attacks is allowed per WP:TPO. Altering legitimate talk page comments without specific reason is not. Please don't do that again. Politrukki (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a personal attack and added nothing to any content or editing discussion. Nothing more to discuss here. Thanks for sharing. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spec, much as I understand your edit, and the target is a long-time DE; I considered reverting it myself. The original causative editor will be eventually blocked under his own actions. Patience will out. Just my humble opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From your lips to God's ears. I guess I was destroying evidence. Obstruction of Justice, maybe. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do i get the feeling you are tired of dealing with editors you disagree with? Oh, I know, it's because we all are. You will make so much more progress by giving them rope rather than asking for it [1]. Please trust me. DN (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suds. This has been going on for over six months. The unwillingness of Admins to enforce basic policy, even after two Arbcom rulings on American Politics, is undermining this great Project and bleeding good editors to more productive real-life pursuits. The evidence, or rope, is all there in abundance but normal humans with real lives and real-life pursuits and interactions will not mud-wrestle on an ANI or AE thread for the sake of cleaning up WP. The Admins who choose to devote extraordinary time and attention to WP must step up to their role and put a stop to this nonsense. The Russian Interference article alone has lost half a dozen thoughtful productive editors over the past six months and the ones who choose to remain active therefore represent a self-selected biased sample of the larger population of potential contributors. Some of the disruptive editors are competent, and their ongoing disregard of site policy raises serious questions for the community. Thanks for the visit and for your editing work here. SPECIFICO talk 10:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made here [2] removed material that was had consensus for inclusion here [3]. Why was it removed? PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That little bit was challenged and should not have been reinserted. It's bad text. Synth, non-sequitur, and utterly gratuitous in that location. Use article talk if you disagree. That little appendix was not the thrust of the RfC. It's not the bible. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on your talk as opposed to the article talk page in case there was a change in consensus that I had missed. Of course it is not the end all be all, but if you want it changed a good idea would be get consensus on the talk page before removing text that was agreed on from a long long RFC. I doubt anyone would mind talking about changing the wording or even removing that part. But anyhow looks like it was already taken care of by DHeyward.[4] So take care and have a nice weekend! PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of caretakers on this article. Editing continued during and after that RfC. Buona fortuna. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just a heads up when you reverted your OneClickArchiver on AE you might want to remove the info from the archive that was added. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't occur to me. I was trying to unhat and read the thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it goes, I might of done something similar in the past with rollbacker. If the text wraps just right on my watch list rollback from the previous item is right on top of prev... I wish it had a confirmation button. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hey pal. Good work today. DN (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks, Nip. I will add it to my collection. I've noticed all the effort you must be putting into your good edits recently. Not many have your patience and clarity. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet:. Please review WP:TPO. While it's fine to hat delete or archive threads on your talk page, you should not edit them to change the meaning they convey to other users. In particular, you should not bold other editors comments, which could give the impression that the original poster is shouting. The same thing can be accomplished, with no possible misrepresentation of other editors' comments, by "hatting" any thread with your own comment in the header. Although you may be aware that the bolding was not done by the other editor, future visitors may not know the context and could misinterpret the bolded text. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at Whataboutism. You bring some sense to those who want to engage in violating WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Russian word for "useful idiot"? I forget. They're sincere of course, and not real life "idiots" in the least. We AGF. It's always surprising to see POV edits contrary to RS reporting of new evidence and detail. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

полезный дурак PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:Thank you, very much, for fixing the blatant attempted whitewash, at DIFF. What can be done to bring in neutral previously un-involved third-party eyes here? Sagecandor (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can always leave neutrally worded requests at relevant projects -- not sure which ones would be relevant. RfC is a last resort in my opinion. POV editors tend to be more highly motivated than normal, so the outcomes don't always reflect the consensus of the entire community. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you about the timeline to seek things out. Agree with you about the tendency of some processes, which is unfortunate, when dealing with such issues. Hopefully this source I've added DIFF, will help debunk the false myth of the supposed 2008 origins pushed forth repeatedly on the talk page? What do you think of the latest source I just added to the article? Sagecandor (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Parker, Tony (1994). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us?

SPECIFICO, what do you think of above cite? This one I think is most likely a primary source, don't think I'll add it directly to main-article-space -- but it does show usage, in-print, prior to 2008. What do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5] OK. Have it YOUR way. DN (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of my way or yours. It's best to let the talk page settle before adding something like this, which is against the tone of the talk thread to date. Also I felt that the position of that new sentence before the two mentions of pundits suggested that the new sentence referred specifically to those two individuals, so it could mislead a reader. SPECIFICO talk 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was feeling overwhelmed during my last few edits, I faintly remember pinging you on Red Rock Canyon's page. I thought it best to step away a few days, because I know that you are there. Please don't take offense to my hyperbole. My bark is typically far worse than my bite. DN (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ahh, but remember that the bark of willow trees is the source of aspirin. Willow Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never mind direct communication. Think nothing of it. What's deadening is only role-playing pretend-editing that makes no sense and fits no policy or collaboration. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to replace my straightforward summary "Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denied the U.S. media reports" with the nonsensical "The Russian foreign ministry advised its followers to avoid reading U.S. newspapers" (reinserting a dead link in the process) with this revert, or (as seems likely, given your edit summary and previous edit) was that simply an unintentional result of your rolling back my other edits? I would like to think, especially given your concern about "irrelevant" Putin jests, that you would appreciate the silliness of Wikipedia ignoring Russia's substantive denial in favor of Zakharova's media criticism (which is not even clearly connected to the topic of the article, and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issue). Far be it from me to suggest that the Russian Foreign Ministry is a reliable source, but I do think that WP:NPOV requires us to at least pay cursory lip service to its denial; and, if not, creating a "Russian reaction" section with unrelated nonsense is just about the worst possible course of action. Again, I suspect you probably agree, at least in part, and that you were acting with relative restraint, and did not intend to revert all the way back to the old, incoherent version. I certainly hope that is the case, because this really isn't the type of thing that should require massive, acrimonious debates to resolve; I would very much like to restore the relatively neutral version last edited by you at 13:46 on July 23 without, say, an RfC, and without being accused of "disruption." But if that's not possible, let me know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this edit. I don't consider it ideal—in fact, I think Putin's offer to "prove" there was no such disclosure, and the criticism said offer recieved, is notable enough to merit inclusion—but it certainly is an acceptable improvement, and I therefore have no reason to challenge it further. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SPECIFICO,

If you would be so kind, please advise on the following matter:

Page: Donald Trump

Sectioned I added: Arts & Culture

Content was immediately removed by a user, they described it as "trivial". In fact, everything listed was biographical and relevant to the section. Everything was factual and backed up by well respected news outlets (BBC, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Donald Trump's personal book published).

It appears their assessment is only an opinion and they provided no description for why the content should have been removed.

I "undid" their edit and explained that their opinion does not warrant the removal of content that is biographical and factual.

Another user at that point said the edit should have been placed on a talk page first for discussion.

That would be agreeable, it's just that I was unable to locate the talk page for Donald Trump to post the material for discussion.

Please advise as to the next steps. For your reference, I have included the original edit here below for your review:

SECTION: Family & Personal Life

SUB-SECTION ADDED: Arts & Culture

When it comes to music, Trump has expressed an interest in singers such as Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. Trump is quoted as saying, “There's so much great music. For me, I'd have to say it's a toss up between Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, and Elton John. I never get tired of listening to them and probably never will… Any album by any of them is bound to be fantastic.”^[1][2] For concert performances, Trump was quoted as appreciating the reggae music of Toots and the Maytals when he said, “I heard the guest band, Toots & The Maytals, practising out on the set [of Saturday Night Live; Trump co-hosted an episode in April 2004]. They sounded terrific, and I went out to listen to them for a while. My daughter Ivanka had told me how great they were, and she was right. The music relaxed me, and surprisingly, I was not nervous." ^[3][4] Trump also attended a Neil Young concert and told Rolling Stone, "He's got something very special. I've listened to his music for years... His voice is perfect and haunting."^[5]

In regard to film, Citizen Kane by Orson Welles is reportedly one of Trump’s favorites. He is quoted to say, ”I think you learn in 'Kane' that maybe wealth isn't everything. Because he had the wealth, but he didn't have the happiness."^[6]

Regarding his interest in books, Trump has said that “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1929) by Erich Maria Remarque is his favorite fiction novel.^[7]

Best regards, Celaur (talk)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blinked. Missed it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, SPECIFICO, do you still contend that (paraphrasing) "the CIA never claimed Iraq had WMDs"? (See, e.g., here.) It would be easier for me to assume good faith if you admitted error on that point. I've been proven wrong many times on Wikipedia, and there's no shame in admitting it, but it would be easier to collaborate constructively with you if I saw similar concessions to reality on your side. (Feel free to delete or ignore this if you'd rather not respond.) Kind regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[6] - This POV, while honest, is why you and I are often at odds. I acknowledge your savvy and experience, but I don't think bringing up these opinions on an article TP is helping. Editors need guidance and leadership by example. It's fine to blow off steam from time to time, but that requires humility, and the ability to concede one's own weaknesses. What do you say to that? DN (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I sometimes find myself rambling on positions when I'm really just projecting...I don't mean to sound course, I'm just anxious as to whether or not I'm communicating my concerns in the right way. DN (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't think you and I are at odds, but at any rate my statement was not a POV in the Wikipedia sense. Remember, tagging a source "left" "right" "extreme" doesn't really relate to the operational tests we apply in evaluating sources, their reliability, or their suitability for specific content. Editing is a nuts and bolts thing. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that anyone who insists they are "at odds" with a wikipedian for stating that one side of a common issue is better than another in a very specific way is not only announcing their own partisan nature, but strongly evincing an inability to work with people of other political views via the mere fact that they are projecting such an inability on others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll transcribe it here later on in a collapsed section for any stalkers of yours.

I don't know if I'm better read than anyone else here. I wasn't suggesting that reality actually has a bias, but rather that the liberal view (which is doubtless to tweak our friend's nose in the section above) is more closely aligned with reality than the conservative view. Hence, to a conservative person; the reading of pure facts and neutral analysis with no spin about a given subject would be perceived as reading a liberally biased piece.

At least in America. In Europe and California (definitely not part of America, that), there is a level of liberalism with popular support that remains just as ignorant of facts as the far-right here in the (rest of the) US. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the former pre-Clinton posterchild for what Americans called liberalism was Gov. Jerry Brown, who was dubbed Gov. Moonbeam to denigrate him as being schizoid delusional, more or less. Well now today Gov. Brown is making tough practical decisions cleaning up after the Schwarzenegger thing. But I don't think there are any of those old "liberal" types left in the USA. Bill Clinton recognized that to be a failed political position after Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Mondale... So Clinton tried to appropriate the center and bring the Democrats on board with that. Clinton managed to withstand the threat of the born again pseudo-conservative Republican southern strategy and to sustain his ability to govern throughout the 1990s. This would further have put Al Gore, also no "liberal", in office were it not for the intervention of Justice Scalia. So the Democrats who win national elections, and win the popular vote even when they don't win the Electoral College, are no longer American Liberals. Anyway, the Republican right had an advantage of sorts, starting in the 1940's with the John Birch Society and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce group. These were business people who knew how to build a long-term enterprise, while the Democrats, on the other hand, had a number of intellectuals that included folks like Adlai Stevenson, Norman Mailer, Jerry Brown 1.0, McGovern, and others, who were easy for the right to ridicule. Meanwhile the right built a wide-scale network of think tanks, endowed university chairs, and print publications to insinuate their ideology into the mainstream. Folks like economist Milton Friedman, actor Ronald Reagan, and other colorful but dull figures were cultivated to build the brand. Federal Justices were seeded in appointments that spread the ideology through the everyday workings of the government and built the resumes of folks like Yalie Clarence Thomas and Harvard Man Gorsuch. The result is that what was formerly the turf of the American (non-extremist) Right -- think Nixon, Romney, Bush 1, -- is now to the left of Obama, Hillary and their colleagues. Contemporary media consumers, including some WP editors, get their news from a variety of near-bloggy websites such as Ars Technica and accept consultant-pundits and op-Ed writers as expert authorities. We know that calculated use of social media -- twitter, facebook, reddit -- can be used to point readers to fake news and half-cocked analysis. BTW, how can California and the Northeast not be "part of the US" when they are the leaders in business, culture, technology, and many other areas of contemporary life there? SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your outline of political history, so I'll not comment on that. In regards to your question; I was being a bit facetious. What I meant was that California (and the rest of the West coast) has actual left-wing liberals in large numbers; democratic socialists, who represent the "extreme" left in the rest of the US, are centrist on the West coast, who fill the gap with communists. Groups with far-left ideologies like PETA are a joke on the east coast and in the heartland, but taken seriously in California. Hell, even the Republicans in Cali are known as being a particularly liberal breed, hence the phrase California Republican. Hell, look at the socio-political norms on display in film and television. When was the last time there was a left-wing villian and a right-wing hero? Meanwhile, if you flip those positions, you have scores of titles. But yes, California in particular and the West coast in general tend to be ahead of the curve, with both political parties taking positions that won't be in vogue with the rest of the nation for a few years. Usually positions to the left of the rest of the country. So I simultaneously applaud the West coast for having its finger on the pulse of the American people in a way no other region does, and laugh at the idiots in ELF sulking because the FBI doesn't even consider them a threat anymore. Although (and again: I'm laughing as I type this) the far right still does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I've never been to California. Is it like a very big Amsterdam without the degenerates? SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's like a big Amsterdamn, but with far less culture and far more degenerates. I used to live in San Diego for a few years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego, USA: Plastic surgery, chalupas, naval base... Sounds like culture to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah for the chalupas. Chalupas are awesome. But that naval base has... <shudder> marines on it. And there's many more of them nearby. And marines are to culture what explosive diarrhea is to an orgy. But at least they can fight well*. *As long as there's a soldier around to explain which end of the gun to point towards the enemy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've left me either speechless or aghast, depending on ones POV. Thanks for the visit. Keep up the good work on articles, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pov vandals at Dinesh DSouza page. Last valid editor that I can see that made changes. If you are not an administrator, ignore report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.125.141 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait a few hours because I hate taking editors to enforcement boards. You violated 3RR so I asked you to undo your last edit. If you think I counted wrong, the simplest resolution would be for you to say so. Otherwise, false and irrelevant aspersions and recriminations are just silly, and the EW notice template is required before a noticeboard complaint. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest: you love taking editors to enforcement boards. Just take a look at how many editors' talk pages you've plastered with warnings, and how many threats you've made (often in vague terms, refusing to provide diffs when asked). And consider how you always pipe up whenever there's any enforcement issue involving people you politically disagree with. You've been hyperactive in enforcement proceedings on both sides, calling for blocks against people you dislike and defending even the most obvious violations by people you like (e.g., defending MPants after they called me an "idiot" and a "moron," while continuing to make regular complaints about WP:PA elsewhere).

A second point: you've been edit warring on Alliance for Securing Democracy. I count three reverts within 24 hours. It looks to me like you're gaming the system, and if you go to a drama board, I'll make sure to point that out and ask for a boomerang.

The POV you're trying to force into the Alliance for Securing Democracy is exactly the same as the one you've been pushing across a whole host of pages on Wikipedia. If you were to at least pretend to be interested in WP:NPOV, it would be much easier to edit alongside you, but when you come to each and every article and try to push through your maximalist position, trying to compromise becomes very difficult.

Nevertheless, I will self-revert this one time. That does not mean that I accept your outrageous POV editing at Alliance for Securing Democracy, nor your stalking of me there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rr is a bright line violation. Nothing to discuss, no justification excuses it, and nothing will deflect the community from enforcing it. So, I give you due credit for realizing that and thanks for saving us the needless trip to the noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit warring at that article, and stalking is also frowned-upon in Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you also trying to take James J. Lambden to a drama board? Whenever I see you plastering that same warning on people's pages, I immediately suspect you're getting ready to launch yet another attempt to block someone you dislike. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, SPECIFICO threatens a lot but prides herself in never actually taking people to AE. She does comment there often, yes, as is her right. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Distinction without a difference. SPECIFICO goes out of her way to railroad her political opponents by piling on AE reports initiated by others, as you yourself experienced when her false claims regarding your nonexistent 1RR "violations" resulted in your being restricted to 0RR, which you successfully appealed after admin El C noted: "I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts." Combined with her constant personal attacks and insinuations that other editors are "Russian trolls," "misogynist(s)" (also here) and part of "the video-gamer whitewash hordes," I know of no other editor that has done more to create a chilling effect in the area of American Politics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling effect, indeed. From the standpoint of improving the encyclopedia, my main issue with SPECIFICO's contributions is a tendency to criticism of other editors, off-topic comments and systematic opposition on talk pages with very few constructive contributions in terms of actual editing of contents. Well, here we are on Spec's talk page discussing Spec's behaviour. @SPECIFICO: do you have any comments? — JFG ^talk 11:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can justify undoing my edit without commenting on the talk page. It appears you do not subscribe to the idea of Bold-Revert-Discuss. Reissgo (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a WP:NOTHERE account and have done nothing but POV-pushing, failing to accept repeated consensus against your ill-sourced and original research crusading for a welter of half-boiled, garbled granola. You are unwilling or unable to understand fundamental WP policies as to sourcing, verification, due weight, and other key principles that kind and patient editors have pointed out to you over these many years. I can believe that you don't understand much of anything relating to WP, but I'm not going to repeat it all for you here. Last editor who AGF'd and tried to reason with you threw in the towel a year or two back, iirc. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you said was true I would have been banned long ago, yet it is you that has been topic banned. Whatever my characteristics are does not give you the right to bypass WP:BRD. Reissgo (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been blocked or banned, in my opinion, because normal folks don't tend to prioritize their rich, productive, and active personal lives to allocate the time and attention it would take to assemble all the evidence of your disruptive behaviour. But don't fall into the foolish and illogical trap of falsely inferring that, just because you've not seen it yet in the past X days, that it will not occur on day X+ε. Far better to focus on site purpose and policy and don't speculate as to why you haven't been sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "V refers to text not sources" is supposed to mean, but if you're seriously suggesting that article text does not need to be verified by reliable sources, you're mistaken. Furthermore, your assertion that the disputed material is "Sourced below" is an outright lie. It's true that the WP:LEAD shouldn't require sources if it is merely summarizing the body, but that actually undermines your position: That's kind of the whole reason why the "conspiracy theories" language you and your sockpuppet friend repeatedly edit warred into the lead without any corresponding additions to the body was so problematic. For the record, WP:V states:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

If you can show me where this source states "[D'Souza's] films have been the subject of some controversy, including criticism for espousing conspiracy theories," great; however, if you cannot, the source fails WP:V. This isn't complicated or obtuse, and there's no sense in muddling the issue. Frankly, if you're literally not going to read the sources, the article, or the policies you cite before editing, that suggests a lack of competence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Translation:(TTAAC) I am resorting to personal attacks again because I didn't get my way." Everyone else tuning in, ignore the WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to see here. 63.227.77.251 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]