User talk:BootsED

Hello, I'm PartisanicActivites. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NewsNation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I was going to add this to the ANI thread, but on second thoughts, I'll leave it here for you to consider. I don't want to muddy the waters with multiple proposals. But you may want to restate yours to allow !voting. At the very least, call them "proposal 1", "proposal 2", "proposal 3" so that people can specify what they are agreeing to. That's if you don't go with what I was going to say, which is:

For community action, it is customary, I think, to write these as proposals. "Admonished" seems to be the preferred term over "rebuked". Personally I'd prefer a single warning, and if an admin wanted to go ahead and issue it, the issue could be dealt with. Failing that, how about this proposal (which, I'm aware, does not say anything about misstating consensus, but encapsulates clearly actionable behaviours):

Proposal: ErnestKrause is officially warned about making personal attacks, WP:TAGTEAMing and canvassing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I agree this would probably be better worded in the way you have described. BootsED (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi I raised this issue on the Trump talk page. Thank you for your excellent draft on this topic. However a bot seems to have archived the discussion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_211#Mental_health and I'm worried that it is now buried. I don't have the Wikipedia experience to know what happens next, if anything. Can I or you do anything? The issues seems more pertinent now than ever before. Thanks. Amble123 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Amble. There's no reason to worry. The draft is simply in the talk page archives at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 211. I also have a copy stored on my computer. I am working on a new version with some minor fixes based on the comments. I've just been busy in real life which has prevented me from submitting the new version. BootsED (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop removing this from the lead https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_Vigilante&diff=prev&oldid=1361616025 It's attributed to Variety, a reliable source R. Bardghji (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's too detailed for a summary style overview of the film to be in the lead. I'm actually the one who added this into the page in the first place, but I placed it in the body where it makes more sense. This is attributed to Boll, which was reported by Variety. Variety isn't substantiating the veracity of the claim. BootsED (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This is attributed to Boll It is clearly the statement by Variety, read the source again R. Bardghji (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. Boll said it and Variety reported it. It's too much detail to be in the lead, though. It's still in the body. Variety isn't saying the event it was allegedly inspired by was true or not. Wikipedia shouldn't be making this a statement a fact in Wiki voice. BootsED (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well it did happen, you can read the court verdict yourself https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2025/2025093.html R. Bardghji (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I never said the event didn't happen. I'm saying we can't say the film was inspired by the event in Wikivoice. It has to be "Boll said" the film was inspired by it as reported by Variety, and there's no way to prove or disprove what Boll was inspired by. It's too much information to be put in the lead of the page regardless, which is why I put it in the body. Unless the full film is based on an actual event, we shouldn't include a director's claims at face value in the lead. BootsED (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Citizen Vigilante. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I reverted one user twice who kept removing "far right" as a description for Alex Jones, and then removed unsourced material not connected to the prior edits. No 3RR violation has occurred here. BootsED (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)