Taking out the trash. Zaathras (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... what? This is a reliable edit. I cited his book. This is a fact. Get your political views off of Wikipedia. CherryOolong (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's Hunter's favorite ice cream flavor? What color socks does he wear? Does he fasten then zip, or zip than fasten? If you are unable to discern the mundane from the important aspects of a person's biography, then you have no business editing WP:BLP articles. Also, Hunter Biden is under extra restrictions, did you not notice the "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" warning? Revert your edit or I will request sanctions. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a mundane fact? You're mad he scored a 172 on his LSAT? Haha, what? CherryOolong (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section is literally titled, "Education" CherryOolong (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

💖 CherryOolong (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning how to use Wikipedia, please be nice. CherryOolong (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CherryOolong: In case nobody else told you: you cannot cite Wikipedia inside Wikipedia as you did here per WP:CIRCULAR. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on Thank you. I was able to figure it out myself. CherryOolong (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When will Part II be released? You have me on tenterhooks. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a little disillusioned with this place lately, took about a week's break, so soon probably. It may be one of those things that initially sounded way cooler in my head than what the reality actually is, but we'll see. :) Zaathras (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors do have standing to tag pages, unlike what you said here. I'm making no comment on of the tag belongs or not, but there's nothing that prevents an IP editor from tagging a page. They're also responsible for the rest of it, though, like discussing civilly on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally preventing? No, but IMO it is an act of bad faith akin to a user who engages in drive-by (tag without discussion). It is an attempt at scarlet lettering by an individual who is not a vested contributor to the project. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with being an IP. Bad drive-by tagging is bad drive-by tagging regardless of who does it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not that they are an IP, although they could well be a sock of a banned user, but we have no evidence of that at the moment. But they do seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Andre🚐 22:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have an eye on it, we'll see where it goes from here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Radish, I'm just throwing out my opinion on the matter, Teddy Brosevelt, calm down. If you want to revert it, go right ahead. Or if someone else does, whatever. How are new things ever done around here: by one person having an idea. Maybe "IPs can't tag" it becomes adopted as a norm, maybe it flops and fades. Who knows. Zaathras (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to apologize for my post on the Jamaal Bowman page. My point was supposed to be that despite our personal opinions, we should not post more on the matter until the matter concludes itself. I claimed that it was a felony, which was incorrect as you pointed out. I misread the law, and went back to check after you pointed it out, and realized my error. I did not want to appear malicious, I just worded my post poorly, and was misinformed. I realize we most likely disagree politically, however I try to be respectful and considerate, so in an effort to extend the olive branch, I write this. RonStev11 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the IP you reverted on Attack on Paul Pelosi is a long-term disruptive editor who tends to add unsupported categories to right-wing political articles. I made a report about them on ANI but nothing has really been done. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they struck again... wizzito | say hello! 04:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

\

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misconstrued what I was saying by the concept of Trumpism as authoritarianism being contested. I do not take anything even vaguely like a trumpist objection. In fact, if you look at the revision history or statitistics on this page, you will see that I contributed most of the content supporting the analysis that Trumpism can be convincingly viewed as an authoritarian movement.

For example, the former lead to Trumpism also described it as a social emotion independent of any ideology or movement. This concept is elaborated in several different ways in the article. For example, as an animal behavior in common with other hominids. People from the collective emotions side of the analysis have the perspective that as long as people misunderstand the emotional nature of trumpism, and treat it as if it is a movement or ideology, it will flourish.

Perhaps you can ammend you comment to reflect your objection given a more fair understanding of what I was saying. BTW, if you are unfamiliar, you can check page statistics to quickly get an overview of my contributions to the article. I am not trying to silence you in any way- if you think that my point should be dismissed as a biased trumpist POV, then if that were true you would be quite right to object. I am just pointing out that perhaps you misunderstood why I think it is a mistake to delete the elements in the former lead describing it both as a social emotion and alternately, as a modern communication phenomenon. J JMesserly (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are your opinion. Opinions are generally full of bias . Instead try using non-bias facts. StephanieMGarza1 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaathras, you [1] reverted my edit referring to an alleged media "hoax" regarding Trump's third Charlottesville statement. You claimed that the allegation was (1) a "fringe", "MAGA-sphere", criticism; and (2) that the books cited were not notable. I accept that the allegation is mostly made by Trump supporters -- the edit states so. However, Even Sam Harris, a Trump-loathing social liberal, has claimed that the “Very Fine People" line was a "media-created hoax”.[2] There are several references to the "hoax" allegation in mainstream sources.[3] (Klein & Berney 2021: 56-59) While the books cited in the edit are not all notable, they do serve to support the text of the edit (that people claim that there was a "hoax", not necessarily that there actually was a hoax). One of the books cited (Loserthink by Scott Adams) already has its own Wikipedia page. I look forward to your response. Thanks. Pakbelang (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither a random clown on reddit nor an article form the Daily Beast via Yahoo are reliable sources. We do not give weight to fringe opinions. Zaathras (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did not claiming that the so-called "hoax" is true. But it is important that WP acknowledge that many Trump supporters hold this belief. Please consider the other sources that I cite to support the existence of the "hoax" belief (such as USAToday, Klein & Berney and the Loserthink book by Scott Adams). Also see this recent piece by prominent conservative commentator, Steve Cortes. Pakbelang (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence has been requested there via ping, but I noticed on another talk page that you said you've disabled pings. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that is the very reason I disable pings. I do not attach an email address to this account. I extremely rarely check in here during what most consider typical 9am-5pm work hours. I don't even own a smartphone, as I do not wish to be tethered to a machine for someone else's communication whims. I almost always keep a Wikipedia page I have previously edited on watch, and if I have partaken in a conversation I will respond if I feel that I have something to say. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You objected to adding content about the witness claiming her relationship with Wade started earlier than they claim. I did as well. Others want it in the article in spite of various BLP concerns. I would appreciate it if you found something to say there, but of course I cannot compel you to. All I can do is try to gently tug on your heartstrings. :P – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In time, but not at the moment. While we're here, and on a different tack entirely, you were namedropped rather unkindly here. I removed it already, plus their unarchiving of an old thread, plus their removal of another subsection. That person is probably not headed towards a productive editing career here, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I was unaware of that editor, let alone that post. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that i have misinterpreted of what i said and it shouldn’t be from my POV, but using misinformation or disinformation is more biased on the Article.. I will not explain my position on the topic but propaganda is a neutral word, you wouldn’t automatically assume that just be cause of one opinion of one article or if yourself said so, will not mean that everyone will agree with you or agrees on the topic! 52Timer (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote my fellow Zoomers, "cool story, bro." Take it to the article talk page, and take this for a tip for the future - if multiple editors revert your editing attempt, it probably means you're wrong. Zaathras (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]