User talk:Mr Ernie: Difference between revisions

Sine wiggles

You forgot to sign at ol’ Jules Assange talk page - and so did sinebot. (Have you turned her off with the category and then forgotten to tilde? Colour me appalled). Cambial — foliar❧ 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure I've done anything with the sinebot. I'm so used to using the reply link which automatically signs that I usually forget when doing an old fashioned edit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RSN list of perennial RS

That is not a comprehensive list. It only contains sources that have been questioned, so RS that have not been questioned are not mentioned there, and the reason they have not been questioned is that their reliability is usually not seen as questionable. The reason some of our most prominent RS are seen there (NYT and WaPo) is because fringe right-wing querulants have complained so much that an official decision needed to be made. They see anything left of their own extreme right-wing position as communist propaganda. They just don't realize that their own position is as extreme as it is. That is especially true for American politics. Europeans consider CNN as centrist, NYT and WaPo as somewhat right-wing, the WSJ as even more right-wing, and Fox as extreme right-wing, with Breitbart, Hannity, Carlson, etc as off the charts right-wing.

Lawfare is maintained by legal experts and is a subject matter expert source of very high quality. Keep in mind the caution about blogs is from the old days when blogs were personal diaries. Now the blog format is also used as the official website for some businesses, news media, political campaigns, politicians, scientists, anti-health fraud skeptical organizations, etc. So don't object just because the word "blog" appears. You should check out Lawfare and read their stuff. It's really good. They dig deep and provide background and sources at a level one rarely sees.

You also need to stop allowing your personal likes and dislikes to guide your editing. Articles are not playthings. Use the talk page. You need to have solid policy-based reasoning, and you don't. Your edits and deletions just create disruption and you're rightly seen as an extremist right-wing partisan warrior whose edits tend toward whitewashing of Trump. You need to get rid of that image. It's not a good look.

BTW, while I usually follow BRD, I don't when edits are like vandalism, IOW without any policy-based reasoning. -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You've packed that article full of such trivial minutiae that it is completely unreadable. It's one of the most unreadable articles on the project. It is an encyclopedia entry with a novella-like 27,000 words of prose, and you are continually adding more.

If you will notice my edit summary for removal also said "far too much detail into otherwise unsourced allegations and minutae[sic]," which you haven't bothered to address either. Allegations, allegations, allegations, allegations. Enough with allegations. We wouldn't accept that on other articles, so it is time you stop pushing them on the Steele Dossier.

You come here calling me a extremist right-wing partisan warrior and my policy based reverts vandalism. You've been blocked several times for misbehavior. You used to have a civility restriction you were required to abide by, and somehow think these personal attacks give you reason to insert contested content. You know how BRD works, so follow it. If you are convinced your text has merit it will gain consensus on the talk page. What's the rush?

There never was a pee tape. Let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What does the existence or non-existence of the pee tape have to do with anything? That question has zero relation to our PAG, yet you continually mention it as if you were a newbie who has no clue about what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Our inclusion criteria for widely cited content from RS requires we document such allegations, true or not. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Steele dossier

I don't like templating a regular, but just for the record you need an official warning for your tendentious editing:

Your recent editing history at Steele dossier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also a WP:OWN template which I ought to give you. Please follow BRD, as for the record you started the edit war. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow I had no idea the vitriol extended to your talk page! These people are as relentless as they are delusional and hypocritical. Stay strong! 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean is my friend, but we just have some very fundamental disagreements about certain facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're a more forgiving and gracious person than I. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI

Apparently an opportunity to attack and assume bad faith of MastCell is too good to miss.[1] Why do you lower the tone on ANI by talking like that? Do you realize that people can be page-blocked from ANI if they post enough such stuff? It has happened. Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC).

It's possible to 'lower the tone' of ANI? Arkon (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you know! I agree with Mr Ernie, and I disagree with Bishonen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What if I called them an "extremist left-wing partisan warrior" instead? That type of language seems to be ok, although granted it was just at my talk page and not the august and stately halls of ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bish I trust you'll be approaching Floq about their "lowering the tone" as well. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this is disappointing to see, but not unexpected I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I just now saw this, and it is more than disappointing, PME. Imagine how it makes me feel considering the circumstances. I'm so sorry this happened to you, Mr Ernie. Tryptofish, thank you for your forthrightness. I just hope the intimidation ends here, but the patterned history doesn't make me hopeful. Atsme 💬 📧 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That Hunter Biden laptop page is something else huh

I appreciate that you're basically the lone voice of reason among what is very clearly a Blue-Anon echo chamber. Keep up the good work. They just reverted one of my edits in that talk page after implying I was a Fox viewer and denigrating "MAGA" people.

It's amazing people like this are able to have influence over what is considered accurate information when all they do is post baseless conspiracy theories. I mean the entire first paragraph of that page is now basically a lie, and do you think they'll honestly change it?

Wikipedia has become an insane echo chamber, I swear. I really do appreciate people like you who try to hold entries to the standards the people running things claim they hold them to. Much respect. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for saying what you did in the Admin action page or whatever it's called. I appreciate you pointing out exactly what I was trying to point out about the nature of the entry and the Talk page, even if you disagree with my behavior.

Keep up the great work as an objective voice of reason. I've definitely had my fill of these political entries. Happy editing! 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a doozy. Maybe one of these days it will be better. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

DS alert us politics

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-1992 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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) 23:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)