User talk:Burrobert

Hi there. I thought I'd respond here to your request for an example of a journalist who has challenged Assange being described as a journalist. The one example that I'm aware of is journalist and now journalism academic Peter Greste, who published an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2019 under the title 'Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom'. Greste's argument. if i understand it correctly, is that Assange did not take care in selecting material to be posted online, but merely dumped documents indiscriminately online. There was no act of journalism as such. Now I should say that I believe that this assertion in contested by others. I suspect that Greste also would not like folk being described as citizen journalists. Greste is, I think, and again I could be wrong, coming from a position where journalism is or should be tightly defined as a profession. Hope that helps. Redaction101 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho thanks for the reference. I vaguely remember reading the article at some stage but had forgotten about it. Peter Greste is notable so his opinion means something. Greste's argument seems to be the most common reason why people don't think Assange and Wikileaks do journalism. As you mentioned, his version of what Wikileaks does is contested, including during Assange's recent trial. There is also the existence of the "New York Times problem", which stopped the US prosecuting Assange during Obama's reign. You may have seen it mentioned on the talk page. It says that there is no legal distinction between what Assange does and what the New York Times does. I think it is unlikely that any consensus on this question will be achieved at Wikipedia for a while. I think the question of whether or not to consider Assange a journalist, either here or elsewhere, contains a political element because of the supposed protections (mainly in the US I think) that come from being a journalist. I know very little about the US constitution. Some people have said that journalism is protected under the free speech section of the First Amendment. I have also read that the protection applies to anyone who publishes and disseminates information. Under the latter interpretation, Assange is protected by the First Amendment irrespective of whether he is called a journalist or not. I suspect that some people would prefer not to use the term journalist for him in order to remove any possibility that he would receive this protection. The question of whether this protection applies would need to be argued in court but hopefully it doesn't get that far. If Assange is tried in the US, it will be in the infamous espionage court in the Eastern District of Virginia. There will be limits on the sort of defences that Assange can use and any jury will be chosen from a community that has a high proportion of intelligence services personnel, which is why the US chooses that district for its espionage cases. John Kiriakou, who was in the same court, said "No national security defendant has ever won a case in the EDVA. In my case, I asked Judge Brinkema to declassify 70 documents that I needed to defend myself. She denied all 70 documents. And so I had literally no defense for myself and was forced to take a plea". Burrobert (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you on the above, on a range of levels. The information about the Eastern District of Virginia is informative, and, if true, disturbing, as is so much about this saga. I will do some more reading. Overall, I agree that it's probably not worth pushing this point (whether he is a journalist) on this particular Wikipedia page - although it is a little weird that he should be awarded a recognized journalism prize and yet not considered a journalist. The article does say Assange is a publicist, which I suppose is close to a journalist, and which in any case, as you point out, would mean that he is probably protected by the First Amendment. I think you're also correct in that whether Assange is described as a journalist is also political, in that it relates to his entitlement to protection. This brings me to another observation, and this is how Wikipedia itself often becomes very political and very ideological. It's not hard to read through the Talk Page and see how that often editors have a particular barrow to push. I did read somewhere a Wikipedia policy saying that editors should not push an ideological viewpoint. I think that the anti-Assange editors are worse, but then again I would say this, and I happen to believe that he should not be in prison, so I too have a point of view. I suppose the thing is that if I were to actually edit such an important article as the Assange article, hopefully I would at least try to objective. Anyways, thanks for responding in such detail. Redaction101 (talk)

Just came upon this article which discusses the debate over whether Julian Assange is a journalist.^[1] The headline is that "The WikiLeaks arrest is about the journalism, not the journalist: The debate over whether Julian Assange is a journalist or not serves no purpose other than to undercut future press freedom". Here is a quote

To prioritise the status of “journalist” over “journalism” is to get it precisely arse-about. Journalism is a practice. You become a journalist by practicing journalism — digging out and spreading fact-based news, in all its glorious diversity. The practice of journalism has an important job to do: to provide the public with the information they need to exercise their own civil rights. For the authorities, it’s a con by states clamping down on freedom of speech: it’s not journalism, they say. It’s false news. It’s not licensed, not approved. Find any journalist detained around the world and you’ll find the detaining government — from Sisi’s Egypt to Suharto’s Indonesia — spruiking some variation or other of this “not a journalist” line.

Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What has this to do with the RFC []?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you forgot to sign. Burrobert (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Must have got removed during cut and paste.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, easily done. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your edits on San Isidro Movement. Could you add another source or two for the US ties items? I ask because the article has been repeatedly edited in the past to include similar claims based on Youtube vloggers, or with no source at all. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 12:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I saw a New York Times article that mentions it as well. Burrobert (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that you have now referred three times to Julian Assange as "our hero":

• Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're using the royal "our" and not speaking for other editors. But please, is this meant to be sarcastic, or do you truly regard him as a hero? Either way, I wonder if you are hoping to influence other editors with this nomenclature. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am well aware of my edit history. Editors can interpret the remark any way they want. Burrobert (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Question dodged. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You know more about this subject than I do, so I'll ask you. Do you have any idea why Pompeo, who was part of the Trump administration, would turn against WikiLeaks, which had helped Trump so much? -- Valjean (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I won’t claim to be an expert, or even particularly well informed, about American politics. My thoughts below are based on rather limited readings in a few areas that intersect with Pompeo.

Pompeo is a political animal who will say anything that he thinks is politically expedient, even if it contradicts things he has said previously. I think is pointless to look for consistency in anything he says.

Pompeo cited Wikileaks in his tweets and media appearances to attack Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. On 24 July 2016, he tweeted “Need further proof that the fix was in from Pres. Obama on down? BUSTED: 19,252 Emails from DNC Leaked by Wikileaks,”.

The change in Pompeo’s attitude to Assange and Wikileaks after the election was a lot more extreme than that of Trump, who merely lost interest in them. Wikileaks served Pompeo’s purposes while he was trying to bring down Hillary Clinton. There is an indication that his attitude may have started changing early in 2017. Soon after Pompeo was confirmed as CIA director in January 2017 he gave an explanation of the July 2016 tweet (and presumably also his other references to Wikileaks during the campaign) "Based on additional briefings and information, including the reports released by the Intelligence Community, I now have a much deeper understanding of Wikileaks and its harmful activities". This indicates that becoming CIA director required him to regard Wikileaks as a hostile entity. It came with the job.

Most opinion attributes the change in Pompeo’s attitude to the release of Vault 7 by Wikileaks in March 2017. Pompeo’s first public remarks as CIA director in April 2017 were mainly about what he saw as the threat of Wikileaks. The recent Yahoo report said Pompeo was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange and was "completely detached from reality because [he was] so embarrassed about Vault 7". There is also the "psychology of the individual" as Poirot often says. Pompeo is an unsubtle, aggressive bully who won't stand for being thwarted. "I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole ... like, we had entire training courses". When Vault 7 was released on his watch, he naturally went on the attack.

What do you think?

Burrobert (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pompeo was head of CIA when the Vault 7 stuff started leaking. It could also be that the relationship between Trump and WikiLeaks was overplayed and overhyped in the media. (edit - opened this page and started typing before Burrobert responded). Mr Ernie (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Steven Donziger has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think many people are interested in reading alll the way through the Yahoo News Investigation section now, there is something about it in the article and one has got to ask oneself what is the point of adding to that if the extra is unlikely to contribute to the article. If you'd like to start a separate article on what was in the Yahoo article and led up to it you might be able to use it there. NadVolum (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive suggestions Nad. Coverage of the Yahoo report is starting to drop off so there is unlikely to be much more to add for the moment. Nevertheless, a lot of interesting information has come from the report and subsequent developments. I don't intend to propose any changes to our current text and it is unlikely that an expansion would be approved by editors. A proper biography on Assange would, of course, go into a lot more detail on the assassination/kidnapping plans. There is another reason for documenting the Yahoo report’s coverage in the media. There is an active RfC on the talk page about whether the Yahoo report should be mentioned in the article and some editors do not think it is appropriate. As you probably know, the RfC arose from the talk page section "Yahoo News investigation". You make a valid point about creating a separate page to deal with US plans to assassinate, kidnap and spy on Assange. There has been enough coverage to justify a separate page and the comments from the talk page could be used as a starting point. There is a similar page about assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. Burrobert (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Brother Mule!

I've just made a great suggestion about the whole Assange kerfuffle. Please say you'll help!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

PS Are you really a Melbournian? Forgive my impertinence... Cos when I'm allowed to go to Melba I'd like to meet you for a coffee/beer/smashed avo. Anyway just a thought.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

PPS Has anyone seen Trump and Assange together in the same room? Jokes.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Jack I am a resident of the great southern capital (no offence intended to Hobart). Curious as to how you worked that out. Or was it a speculative guess. Let me know when you are in town. Smashed avo is de rigeur here. Regarding your proposal, Julian's life and achievements are too big to confine to one page so there are many opportunities for content forks. Given the hundred or so references on the talk-page about US plans to kidnap/assassinate him, one possibility is "US intelligence operations against Julian Assange" (similar to the page on Fidel Castro). A page devoted to assessments would be fine as well. If we were allowed to have a page devoted to jokes about JA, we could add your quip about Trump to it. Let me know when you get it up and running and I will plough in. Burrobert (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I endorse both your suggestion to the hilt and beyond. Particularly the one on Fidel Castro. But we might need to say "Alleged...." I am indisposed to actually research at the moment due to failing eyesight, plumbing probs etc, but I will keep you in the loop, I trust.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised by your reference to "our Premier", which I took to be a reference to Chairman Dan and the Flinders Street Soviet. Etc. Melbourne is Macarthur's Capital, so it should hold no grudge against Sydney.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

PS I would also say that a "joak" is an assessment. But I don't have a WP: or a RS to back up this airy assertion. Yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your afflictions which sound as though they may be age-related. Good pick up on the reference to "our premier". May our glorious and exalted leader continue to protect and nourish us through these tempestuous times. The relationship with our northern neighbour is complicated. Some of us have relatives on the other side of the Murray so have to remain measured in our comments. You will need to explain your reference to Macarthur's Capital as I have not been able to track it down. Was "joak" a dig at Victorian pronunciations? Burrobert (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

During WW2, General Macarthur ran the war effort from Melbourne. No, I was not commenting on Victorian pronunciations. I can't tell the difference...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

In the RfC about whether to include Assanges involvement in the releae of the unredacted cables you did not specify *Include or Exclude or whether what you were writing was a comment with Comment. It looks like some people aretaking your list of smears as part of the reasoning in the introduction about the RfC rather than a digression and so dismissing the whole business as not a reliable source. Could you mark your contribution please so this confusion does not arise. NadVolum (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2022 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:05, 26 January 2022 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:06, 26 January 2022 (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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. About edits like this - diff. Please see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and consider using the {{additional citation(s) needed}} template, instead of removing content from an article. Thank you. Renat 07:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to use the talk page instead of edit warring with poorly rationalized reverts even after your comments are taken into account and well-sourced content is established. Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of this controversy and the subsequent effect on her career, but the Toronto iincident -- precipitated by the objections of the North American Ukrainian community -- is the most notable factor in her life and is properly described and sourced in the article and was appropriately referenced in the lead before your repeated revert. She is not a Gergiev whose worldwide notability is due to other factors. You should also work on improving sources per WP:SOFIXIT. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 5 March 2022 (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-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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You recently made an edit to conform the Assange/Rich content accurately to the source. Well and good. But your work has now been reverted and replaced with wording that does not reflect the source. Please reinstate the corrected text you inserted. Otherwise, I am afraid we will need to reconsider the entire matter from scratch and it will lead to a very lenghty discussion with no improvement over the correction you made. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I found this website which may be of interest to you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Jeffrey Sachs. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.

Please review WP:BLP and note sanctions apply to such articles per WP:ARBBLP. See WP:COI in case it might apply. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the article Aaron Maté is now under a 72-hour one-revert restriction for the next month (till 6 December), up from the normal 24-hour restriction in place for all Syrian Civil War articles. This message is being sent to all recent editors of that article, and implies no wrongdoing on your part.

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Right-ho thanks for the warning @Tamzin:. Excellent idea regarding the extension to 72 hours. Hopefully it slows down the to-ing and fro-ing in the article. There is a lot going on there at the moment. Burrobert (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Venezuelanalysis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You've deleted a sourced sentence from the page saying "Source does not say "the channel's close ally in Lebanon is the Shiite group Hezbollah". Could you please read the first sentence of the related source which you removed: A new pan-Arab TV station that went on the air Monday courts viewers who see mainstream coverage of the political upheaval sweeping the Middle East as biased against the regimes in Syria and Iran and their close ally in Lebanon, the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah. This sentence implicitly indicates the alliance between the channel and Hezbollah. So your edit will be reverted. Egeymi (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the source prior to making the edit of course. The sentence is talking about " viewers who see mainstream ... ". The sentence is also saying that "the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah" is a close ally of "the regimes in Syria and Iran". There is no mention that "the channel's close ally in Lebanon is the Shiite group Hezbollah". Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Comrade Burro!

Salut! Can you give me some help with my new foray re Julian Assange?

I can't work out how to give you access to my sandbox...

Hopefully this will end the perennial debates re hacking, health etc...

Comrade J Jack Upland (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have never used a sandbox comrade J. Had a quick look at the guide. Adding "left-curly-bracket left-curly-bracket My_sandbox right-curly-bracket right-curly-bracket" to the top of your talk page may point other users to it. Here "left-curly-bracket" = { and "right-curly-bracket" = }. Is this related to your idea of creating a shrine for the oz part of Julian's bio? Burrobert (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your edits to all the things Ive added recently, theyve really helped and the Talk has been good too Softlemonades (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I knew someone would change defense back to defence however you are inconsistent in usage. If you're going to do that every time the word is used it must be with a c. You can't use both.Extraordinary2 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This is about the Julian Assange page. I used a script to change the spelling to Oz spelling. Did I miss one of the misspellings? Burrobert (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, the word is used often. Extraordinary2 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

both edits that you thanked me for making in Ukraine on Fire have been reverted and I am inclined to let them go. Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes Carptrash, I thought your edits improved the neutrality of the article. I will answer more fully in the section you started on the article's talk page. Burrobert (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Mission Housing Venezuela. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Burrobert. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you took out some parts of my edits to Owen Jones' wikipedia page earlier today. One thing I wish to particularly bring up is that you removed some parts of the quotes from the YouTube video as you noted they were not mentioned in the JC source. Those quotes can be found in other sources besides the YouTube video, and they are in the video, however they are only reported in newspapers like the Express. What do you think can be done about this? I feel the quotes you have taken out are very relevant to the case as he explicitly mentions seeing a woman burned alive with her knickers pulled down yet still opts to cast doubt on the possibility sexual crimes occurred, but I am also familiar with Wiki policy re: tabloids (even though in this case the tabloids correctly reported the quote; I have watched the video in full) Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't watch the YouTube video but assumed that was where the quote appeared. Afaict, YouTube videos can be used as sources but there are restrictions on their use since they are primary sources and self-published sources. Some relevant links are Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, Wikipedia:Video_links, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking, Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. As you noted, and as a number of editors stated on the talk page, the Express is not a suitable source. I don't doubt that the quote you included does appear in the YouTube video. Can I suggest that you include a timestamp for the content when you add a reference to a video. It will make it easier for other editors to verify the content. Regarding Hadley Freeman's article, I couldn't find where your text "dismissing the atrocities inflicted on Israeli civilians by Hamas" came from. She seems to be saying a number of things so I chose her initial comment about the video, assuming it was the most important to her. Anyway, we should have this conversation on Owen's talk page and I would be interested to see the opinions of other editors. Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

hello, I just noticed you reverted my edition on Palestine Action's article because I am apparently "not qualifed to edit relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute". what are the qualifications? how was this decided? can I ask other editors to make this change, for example on the article's discussion page? and why am I technically allowed to do this if WPEN's policy is against it? thank you for your reply. GloBoy93 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good afternooon @GloBoy93:. Thanks for dropping in. I have placed some information on your talk page about editing restrictions related to contentious topics such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. The decision about applying restrictions to particular areas is made by administrators. The policy is not implemented in software, meaning your edits in these areas won't generally be automatically prevented and it is up to editors to detect the edits and remove them if necessary. Yes, you can use the article's talk page to ask other editors to make changes/additions to the page. Burrobert (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for you answer. wow, so it was implemented without community approval? as someone who's rather active on WPFR, this is completely unheard of for me. what does the community think about it? do you have an opinion about it? and is it common practice on WPEN for administrators to make such decisions without community approval? hoping my curiosity isn't overwhelming. GloBoy93 (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have limited knowledge of the process and have not asked how others feel about the restrictions. I think there is a good reason to place these restrictions on contentious topics since they are most likely to attract interest from new users. The restriction helps ensure that new editors "learn the ropes" before editing in areas where arguments will arise. By the way, you may be interested to know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are a few other things that Wikipedia is not - have a read of the page. Regarding your edit that I removed, it would be worth asking someone on the article's talk page to include it in the article if appropriate. Wasn't it something to do with the group's logo? Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Please self-revert your recent revert; consensus required applies to this article, and I am not seeing a consensus in the informal discussion - particularly since we have a formal consensus to attribute it to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding, while your new version does not do this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering that you have continued the discussion on the talk page without reverting, does this mean that you are not going to self-revert and I need to take this to WP:AE? BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus on the talk page to provide the context that Nad added. You started the discussion on the talk page under "Removal of Nick Davies and then didn't participate in the discussion in the week and a half during which a consensus was achieved. When that consensus was implemented by Nad, you then re-inserted yourself into the discussion. Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I was inactive and didn't have time to participate until today.

I don't see a consensus in that discussion, and certainly not one strong enough to overturn aspects of the recent RfC. Please, self-revert; I would prefer not to have bring this to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. We formed a consensus without you and implemented it. The consensus is consistent with the result of the RfC which stated that the alleged quote from Assange should be included within his bio "alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Burrobert. Thank you.

We should not participate in the attempted erasure of Palestine by hiding her views from readers.

Please strike per NOT, TALK, and DR. - Hipal (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a motherhood statement. Presumably you aren't advocating that we do the opposite. Burrobert (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It makes it unclear if you can follow our behavioral policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend (girlfriend), user <Burrobert >! You, an active participant in the discussion : « 12:26, 20 March 2024‎ Burrobert talk contribs‎ 342,119 bytes +876‎ « 

 Besides : ..… Заблокирован 91.183.159.198 администратором ‪El-chupanebrej в 14:04, 16 апреля 2024 …  (IP  - Block)

Perhaps you, or content users, will be interested in information. On the topic "Alexey Navalny". Distributed by Russian Military Intelligence. Accredited near the NATO Headquarters. Allegedly. One of the participants in the liquidation of A. Navalny. Some . Former . FSB special forces soldier. Born 1970 or 1971.

Serving a life sentence. In prison . In Russia . For murder - in Berlin! Supposedly he. Threw a poisoned snowball.

For the deceased. Shortly before his death. Simultaneously . Into a prison cell. A. Navalny. Was splashed/poured. Organic chlorine-phosphorus. Strong action. Thus . FSB special agent. Served as a "cover person". I. Was pardoned / released. After the death of A. Navalny.
 In connection with this information. From GU-GRU. Do you know? Anything. About the further fate of the characters.

To the younger generation. boys and girls Wikipedia.org. It would be useful. Find out more details. To . Learn from other people's mistakes. 91.183.159.198 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I received the feed back regarding edits I made. I do feel that the information presented is relevant and necessary and similar information can be found in other living peoples who have similar allegations. Would you be able to assist in reforming the information rather than removing it all together? I am new and would appreciate help in doing so. Thanks. Ticketthedog (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Burrobert (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martin Van Buren and Talk:Kamala Harris on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Burrobert. I see you're keeping watch over the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution page. I'm probably going to be adding things for a while, but I want your input. If you see any info that is categorized wrong or worded funny, feel free to edit. Mangokeylime (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Right-ho. Thanks for the advance warning. Burrobert (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:John Rustad on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I created a template, {{welcome-arbpia}}, to try and explain ECR in plain language for new editors. The normal CTOP alert is still necessary for them to be "aware" in the AE sense, so I normally leave both templates for new editors. Thanks for welcoming new editors and making them aware of the sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks SFR. It looks good. Burrobert (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathan J. Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current Affairs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Banaras Hindu University on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Catnip on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In Ramzy Baroud, if a link is to a claim by Ramzy Baroud that someone was shot, then it is a reference to Ramzy Baroud claiming something, not to an externally verified fact that someone was shot. 2620:10D:C092:500:0:0:5:4EE2 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit notice on the article's talk page. Make an edit request if you want to make changes related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Burrobert (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sayfo on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Burrobert. Thanks so much for your revert and edit summary at Clementine Ford (writer), and for placing the tag on the talk page. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 16 years now and I've completely avoided the I/A conflict, mostly because I don't like disputes with other people on here. Anyway, I do have an interest in articles about writers so I have been editing the article for Ford since 2017, long before she was involved in the I/A conflict herself.

The editor who you recently reverted there has made some other biased edits recently. For example, manipulating the information attributed to this source to say something was only "alleged" when the source explicitly said otherwise: . Firstly question: am I correct in assuming that I can revert the edits of any non-extended confirmed editor to I/A articles, without running the risk of violating the one revert limit as mentioned in the I/A tag you placed on the talk page?

Secondly, I would like your advice about the new article 2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident. I would never search for an I/A article to edit, but an editor linked to this article at the article for Ford, and when I went to look at the new article out of vague curiosity, I noticed it was also doing the same thing that was attempted at Ford, saying that certain incident was alleged, when even the sources at that article said otherwise. I was hesitant to get involved, but the article was written entirely by two editors who are clearly strongly in favour of the Israeli side of the conflict, and I couldn't help but notice the article was riddled with many other POV issues as well (check my edits to the article and their summaries for examples), some of which still remain.

I'd prefer not to be the person trying to make sure the article adheres to NPOV, but as nobody else is involved I feel obligated to, especially since concerning edits are still ongoing. Attempts I make to adhere to WP:NPOV are removed or modified by the two original writers, but a new account attributing a false statement to a source in favour of the Israeli side (the source explicitly stated the opposite of what the editor added here ) was left intact by the two original writers (I have since removed it). For balance I added some opposing views to the article, including using a source that was already being used in the article but had been cherry picked to only support the Israeli side even though the focus of the article was the opposite, but the paragraph was completely deleted by one of the original writers on the justification that "we cannot have a flood of opinion articles here". The irony is the article is flooded with pro-Israeli opinions (which is fine in itself), but the only paragraph offering opposing opinions was deleted.

I reverted the large deletion as per WP:BRD, though I feel like more POV edits to the article are inevitable and I don't want to be the sole person keeping watch for that; I'd rather take the article off my watchlist entirely but if I don't monitor it at this stage nobody else will. Do you have any suggestions on what to do, or how to try and bring the article's existence to the attention of other editors who might be able to edit it in a more neutral manner? If you are interested in watching it/looking over it by all means please feel free, but I'll completely understand if you don't want to touch this either, so I'll settle for advice since you very much seem to know your way around this issue. Thanks for your time and sorry for the long message. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by Damien and alerting me to that week-old article. As you say, the A-I conflict can be a time-sink for editing. I had a quick look at the article and agree that there are problems with bias in the presentation. At this stage I won't attempt to improve the article, but I will add it to my watch list and let you know of a few things that I consider unbalanced.

• Use of words such as "however" and "though" which are considered words to watch
• The phrases "individuals describing themselves as pro-Palestine activists" and "a group describing themselves as pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists". Is this meant to cast doubt on the activists?
• Does the jumbled phrase "continuing the use of using Zio as a racist slur to refer to the Jewish community" come from a source or is it an editor's opinion?
• I could not find the phrase "First Nations people and anti-zionist Jews" in the Times of Israel source provided.
• Did the Oz government really change legislation because of the incident? Some of the sources in the Changes to legislation section do not mention the doxing specifically.
• The choice of sources: The Hun (also know as The Herald Sun), the AFR and The Australian are not likely to provide balanced coverage of the issue. I counted ten citations to the Australian.

I agree with your inclusion of some opinions from The Conversation article to balance the negative content on the page. Regarding a suggested approach, here are some things you can do:

• You can add NPOV tags to the article as a whole or to sections to indicate that the content is unbalanced. You would then need to start a conversation on the talk page to indicate why you believe the content is biased. This would at least start a discussion.
• To bring other editors into the discussion you can post a request on the NPOV noticeboard. If you think the article contains contentious material about living people, and you can't resolve the issue, you can post at the BLP noticeboard.
• I thought I had seen somewhere that edits by unqualified editors can be reverted without counting towards total reverts, but I can't find anything stating this in policy. All I can find is an instruction that "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted" at Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Editing_a_contentious_topic. Exceptions to the revert restrictions rule at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule do not mention reverting of edits by an unqualified editor. Without further information I would suggest using caution.
• When you see that a non-extended confirmed editor has made edits relating to the A-I conflict, check that they has been given the appropriate Contentious Topics notice on their talk page. If not, add it. I add the notice to the talk pages of two editors who had made contributions to the Doxing article. The effect is two-fold. Firstly, the editor is made aware of the restrictions and secondly appropriate action can be taken if the editor continues to infringe.

Hope this helps and sorry I can't bring myself to wade into the mire, but good luck if you do. Burrobert (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the time taken for your detailed response, it's certainly much more than I was expecting, and no worries at all about not wanting to wade directly in. I don't want to actively edit the article either, but I presume adding the article to your watch-list means you're willing to revert new biased additions, which alone makes me feel much better.

Ironically I was the one who added the terms "however" and "though" to the article, I've never realised they were words to watch, but the instance of 'however' was connecting to the 'Israeli' counterpoint and the instance of 'though' was connecting to the 'Palestinian' counterpoint, so it was at least balanced by default in that regard haha. There was a the second instance of 'though', but that one comes from the same source, so a relationship does exist between the two points so this concern doesn't apply. I've modified the other two uses of the terms though.

To be honest I'm still hesitant and undecided about even putting a NPOV tag on the article, even though it clearly deserves one, just because I don't like the idea of becoming involved in the possible ensuing debate on the talk page. Ideally I'd like to put an NPOV tag on the article and then put your list of concerns on the talk page as justification, alongside my own. The only one I wouldn't add (besides the words to watch issue I've just fixed) is your point about the law; it's my understanding it was changed and the final source is just citing the change without political commentary. An issue I'd add myself to your list is the choice of using a blockquote, which seems like undue weight to me purely for being in blockquote form instead of being regular prose.

I will add likely add the article to the NPOV noticeboard though. Thank you for that suggestion. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your minor edit at the article in question a while back. I know it was only a little thing, but upon seeing it I did feel a sense of relief knowing at least one more person is watching the article. I'm really interested to see what opinions you might you have at the article's current deletion nomination, since you have more experience in this subject than I do. No worries if you don't want to weigh in though. I'm inclined to support it at this stage but I would like to see what points at least one other person raises first as I don't have experience editing in this area. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Good evening @Damien Linnane:. A cursory glance suggests the Antisemitism in Australia article is problematic, so I would not recommend transferring the content there. E.g. the part about a rally on 9 October at which "rally members chant[ed] anti-Jewish statements" does not mention a statement by the rally organiser about the source of the chants and his attempts to stop them. Elsewhere it uses a blog on the Times of Israel site for a statement about a number of incidents. If moved anywhere, the doxing incident should be placed in an article unrelated to antisemitism, since this is disputed. Given that members of the J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics group were involved in pressuring the ABC to sack Antoinette Lattouf, what about giving the group an article, in which the doxing incident and the group's role in Antoinette Lattouf's sacking can be placed? Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I only looked at Antisemitism in Australia for the first time after the article was linked at Clementine Ford (writer), at which point I did indeed notice that the article stated Clementine participated in doxxing the group, though it chose to omit the fact the group targeted her first. I fixed that, but I'm not suppressed to hear the article makes several other omissions. Incidentally, thanks for the source linking the WhatsApp group to Antoinette Lattouf. I wasn't actually aware it was the same group, but that is very relevant and definitely belongs at the doxxing article, so I will add it there later.

I started a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard as per your suggestion. As a result, the admin who got involved there has now topic-banned the most problematic editor there from the I/A conflict. My point being, now that the POV pusher who very much appeared to be reverting any changes they personally didn't approve of can no longer edit the article, I feel more comfortable editing it myself, and I hope you and others do as well.

It's clear the article will neither be merged or deleted. So addressing some POV issues that remain there is pertinent. The big issue I see is actually the opening line. I would argue this did not "target the Jewish community in Australia". I would argue it targeted one WhatsApp group, rather than an entire community. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Just read the NPOV thread which you started and found it very interesting. Hopefully, you can now engage fruitfully with other editors on the page. Agree that the first line is too broad. Those involved in the doxing have said their action had nothing to do with the religion of the group members. Your suggested change would make the article more accurate and less incendiary. Burrobert (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've just made the change, and I also added the information about Lattouf. If the changes get discussed on the talk page I hope you will join the discussion. I see other issues on the page but to be honest I feel like I've made enough bold edits for one person, certainly more than I was ever planning to. I don't want to be the only person trying to restore balance, so while I will still participate in talk page discussions, I will probably avoid actively editing the article from here. I do note someone at the deletion nomination has commented that many sources at the article are unreliable and should be removed, in particular Newsweek. If nobody else does so in the meantime, I'll probably reach out to that editor after the deletion nomination closes and ask if they're willing to follow through with that, as I don't want to be the only person removing things. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alliance 90/The Greens on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2028 United States presidential election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Oligarchy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coefficient of relationship on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syrian civil war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Burrobert,

I saw that you had made an edit before on the Australian Citizens Party article, thanks for helping to improve it. I would like for you to comment on the Talk page if possible, there is a discussion ongoing about the neutrality of the article. Before I started editing it on the 17th of April, it was extremely negative, and information was outdated. I also pointed out how the creator of the article was extremely negatively biased towards the party by quoting things they said in the talk page. I believe I improved the neutrality, but I still had doubts myself if some of the changes I made seemed negative or maybe perhaps even went the other way, so I asked for help on the NPOV noticeboard. Someone recently undid all my changes, but I reverted that. I spent quite some time and effort trying to update the article. May you please comment on the discussion that is going on? Thanks again. NoBudee (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wagner Group on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosab Abu Toha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kosovo on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 19:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ellie Reeves on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 01:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Why did you attribute Sara Flounders denial of Serbian war crimes when she provably made them? I understand if you don't want primary sources in the article, but why act as though Pulse Media is opinionated in noting the fact? This is an important topic considering the history of Bosnian genocide denial. JPHC2003 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The source being used is a weblog. It may not be an appropriate source to use for a controversial statement in a WP:BLP. If it is used, it needs attribution. If you think the statement is provable, open up a discussion on the talk page and provide the proof. Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

appreciated your edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kiriakou&action=history&offset=20240703160653%7C1232411742

you maybe interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&action=history

great job, keep up the good work! 109.252.179.32 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your edits to the Graham Phillips (journalist) page. Because of your revisions, the page is much better, more succinct, accurate. You really improved it, great work!Texpertt (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the compliment Texpertt. You deserve at least half of the acclaim for your efforts in salvaging some of the missing text. Keep up the good work. Burrobert (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You said my edit on Ms. Rachel was reverted because topics on the Gaza War required an account that was more than 30 days old and had at least 500 edits. However, 1) the topic was not directly related to the Gaza war and 2) my account actually is more than 30 days old (its 14 years old), but it doesn’t have 500 edits (it has 412 edits). But, as I said, the topic of Ms. Rachel being nominated as Anti-Semite of the Year is not directly related to the Gaza War. Azuizo (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

She was nominated for the "award" because of her actions to protect Palestinian children during the Gaza genocide. Your account is old enough but you also need to have at least 500 edits before editing it that area. Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Progressive except Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BDS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at User talk:HermanWanggai on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 01:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I found a copy of the book through the Internet Archive, linked here. The quote that he featured was different than the one on the Chicago Tribune, and so I think it's much safer to use the quote used by the Tribune. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the link @Yoshiman6464:. I agree. Burrobert (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hangman's knot on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

in Piers Robinson. That was a mistake. I can’t reproduce how it happened that I didn’t find it in the HuffPost article. DaWalda (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed it was an error of some sort. I thought you may have been referring to another part of the article when you made the edit. Anyway, these things happen. Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Dude, I'm beginning to get sick of you attributing provably spoken statements on here. David Walls quoted Michael Parenti's own words in the 2000 issue of Project Censored, in which he explicitly denied genocide and rape camps were in Bosnia. This is clear minimization, and this is not the first time you have done so. JPHC2003 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Balkan's witness also provided receipts for Parenti's minimization and questioning of the Srebrenica massacre, which you could have just read yourself. JPHC2003 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

G'day cobber. I will copy your comment to Michael's talk page for a discussion. Burrobert (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your tireless contributions related to the Gaza war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Pachu Kannan:. Very much appreciated. Burrobert (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)