User talk:M.mk

You have recently been editing pseudoscience and fringe science which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't edited the Wik entry, only posted to the talk tab. M.mk (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lonnie_Zamora_incident M.mk (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not recall making any changes whatsoever to that page, Arab–Israeli conflict. M.mk (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was part of the discussion at the Bob Dylan talk page and thought I would look at what happened on the Sgt. Pepper page. It looks to me like people thought just inserting a mention of the book into the page wasn't really adding anything to the article's usefulness. You might have been better off adding it as an additional source verifying Evans' possible contributions rather than trying to put the book title into the text. In fact, looking at it, I think it is a little odd that that sentence isn't sourced to the book. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

Maybe I didn't do it in the total proper way, but the article says only:

"According to his diaries, Evans may have also contributed to the song."

The book whose title I mentioned, is the only source the average person can consult for "Evans' diaries." It is based on his diaries and quotes from them, the author being given complete access to the diaries.

Just tryna help. M.mk (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Wik' cop could have tidied up what I added, not just blithely removed it. M.mk (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And the book quotes what Evans reported in his diary about the Sgt Pepper song and also him helping with "Fixing a Hole." M.mk (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, McCartney even told Evans he'd get royalties for his Sgt Pepper-related contributions, but that never happened. M.mk (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

People do tend to get fairly protective of high-traffic articles like ones for Beatles songs. People sometimes stick in gratuitous mentions of books or other media into articles just to boost them, as ads basically. In general, documenting where a bit of info comes from should be handled as a reference, using a < ref > tag. If you haven't done those before, edit some random article with references and see what the coding looks like. (Unless you are using an interface that will handle such things automatically; I'm afraid I'm kind of old school.) Brianyoumans (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

Editing is scary enuff aside from the scarier footnotes stuff.

>People do tend to get fairly protective of high-traffic articles

Yep, I sure noticed that. My simple additions (a sentence each) to two Jonathan Richman albums (one was I, Jonathan) have not been removed or altered.

Same for this obscurity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sia_(Pisidia)

Incidentally, J Richman says in a postal letter reply to me:

"Don't believe always this 'Wikipedia.' Someone once handed me a page about myself from there. 1/2 of it was stuff they just copped from other articles that they never fact-check and it was mostly all incorrect -- by a lot."

Jonathan to my friend who rec'd his undated letter on Aug 19, 2024:

"I once did a radio interview here in the States somewhere and the handed me 'my' Wikipedia page. Lots of it was just rumors that they read somewhere else."

Also to her "I don't know how to run a computer and don't want to find out."

I offered to fix his page.

Reply:

"I don't want to get involved in any of it; people might just be aware that ya can't just accept anything you read. That's all."

This sounds harsh in tone, but that didn't apply to the rest of his brief letters.

Above from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Richman#Jonathan_states_in_correspondence_that_this_article_has_errors... M.mk (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but private communications are not considered a reliable source for articles. Information need to be published in a reliable source, usually something edited and reviewed, to be included. Of course, considering Dylan, you can see why a person may not be a reliable source even on themselves! Sometimes people lie about themselves - they want privacy, they're embarrassed by their past, they want to advance their career in various ways by altering their past - there's lots of possible reasons. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good points, thanks, and it had already occurred to me that people might not believe I'm actually quoting Jonathan -- for what that's worth. M.mk (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If he were to send me corrections as he saw things, I planned to add them to the talk tab so they could at least be seen there and people could believe them or not. M.mk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, M.mk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:False or misleading statements by Bob Dylan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

M.mk,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:NATO are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your comment really needed to be removed, but if you want to continue suggesting putting something in the article along those lines, I would suggest finding a source or two that discussed that issue. If you did, people might be receptive to adding it to the article, if the sources weren't too fringy.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe I read it stated by peace activist David Swanson relatively recently that establishing NATO and its continuation violates the UN Charter.

But I can't find where he said it.

I will ask.

https://davidswanson.org/ M.mk (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is Mr Swanson's response to my query.

I will ask if the material is from his book on NATO or a post on his website and plan with such a citation to make the assertion on the article page proper.

Is NATO even legal?

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty declares that NATO members will assist another member if attacked by “taking action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” But the UN Charter does not say anywhere that warmaking is authorized for whoever jumps in on the appropriate side.

The North Atlantic Treaty’s authors may have been aware that they were on dubious legal ground because they went on twice to claim otherwise, first adding the words “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” But shouldn’t the United Nations be the one to decide when it has taken necessary measures and when it has not?

The North Atlantic Treaty adds a second bit of sham obsequiousness with the words “This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So the treaty seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations.

Despite NATO’s dubious legal standing, it actually serves in U.S. discourse as a legal justifier. When the U.S., UK, and three other nations attacked Yemen in January 2024, NATO helpfully published a statement declaring the action to have been “defensive.”[i] If NATO and the United Nations are a bit conflated in your mind—they are both international and have something to do with war—this sounds like a judicial finding, whereas in reality it is simply a bit of rhetoric, eminently open to question, since interfering with shipping in waters near Yemen (the offense used as justification for the attacks) is not identical to launching a military attack on the United States and four other countries.

Also in January 2024, a Bosnian president appealed to NATO to wage war to prevent the secession of part of his country, illustrating not what NATO actually has a legal right to do, but what some people believe NATO can and will do.[ii]

Despite NATO not being an elected body representative of or accountable to any public, it is used by the U.S. Congress as a means of shirking responsibility. The claim is frequently made that Congress need not investigate the atrocities of a war because it is a NATO war.

Despite NATO being dominated by the U.S. government, it is used in U.S. media to depict wars as carefully chosen rational actions of the “international community.” That has long been a primary purpose the U.S. government has had for keeping NATO members in NATO and taking actions through NATO.

The more NATO becomes the entity that is understood to be taking actions in the world, rather than the U.S. military, the harder it is to oppose those actions. People cannot get upset with and vote out their local representative to NATO because there is no such thing. This is perhaps best illustrated by the following incident.

Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a great debate has raged between those who claim the invasion was “unprovoked” and those who—while condemning the invasion as a horrific, murderous crime—point out that it was just about the most openly and enduringly provoked attack in history, with Western officials warning of it or publicly advocating for it for years. The latter side of the debate has pointed to NATO expansion as central to the provocation.

But who would have expected the Secretary General of NATO himself, Jens Stoltenberg, to openly admit that it was NATO’s expansion that led to the Russian invasion? In a talk on September 7, 2023, Stoltenberg said that, in the autumn of 2021, President Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign, promising no more NATO enlargement. “It was a pre-condition for not invading Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that,” he said. “We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”[iii]

Were NATO’s leader a national president, all hell would have broken loose with this admission. But he is merely the Secretary General of NATO, about whom the very idea of accountability does not seem to arise.

[i] “Strikes by US and Britain against Houthi forces were defensive,” Reuters, January 12, 2024,

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/strikes-by-us-britain-against-houthi-forces-were-defensive-nato-2024-01-12/

[ii] Denitsa Koseva, “Bosnian president appeals to US and Nato to prevent new war

NBE Intellinews,” January 11, 2024. https://www.intellinews.com/bosnian-president-appeals-to-us-and-nato-to-prevent-new-war-307372

[iii] Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Opening Remarks, NATO, September 7, 2023,

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en M.mk (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking into it a little myself, I'm not sure authorities agree with Mr. Swanson. Article 51 of the UN Charter says "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations", and this has I believe generally been interpreted to say that countries can pledge support to allies if attacked. Admittedly, NATO may have several times stretched the definition of being attacked, but I don't think the NATO treaty itself is a violation of the UN Charter.

Mr. Swanson seems rather, uh, pro-Russian. Just because a sovereign nation on your border may want to join NATO, and NATO is willing to accept them, that does NOT give you the right to invade them. One suspects that Putin was not defending Russia, but instead Russia's God-given right to bully and oppress its neighbors.Brianyoumans (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Swanson, uh, opposes both sides of any war including Russia/Ukraine.

The information is from NATO: What You Need to Know (2024) by Medea Benjamin and David Swanson. OR Books.

At the risk of seeming pro-Russian -- I, too oppose both sides of any war -- expansion of the military alliance known as NATO was a significant provocation as was the US-backed 2014 Ukraine coup ending Ukraine's neutrality and aligning Ukraine with the west.

“The dean of America’s Russia experts, George F. Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Central Europe [by Clinton] ‘the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.’ Kennan, the architect of America’s post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner.”[2]

[2] James Goldgeier, Brookings Institution, “The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO: How, When, Why, and What Next?“ June 1, 1999.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2022/04/28/peace-movement-needs-to-demand-dismantling-of-nato/#comment-5601

Further, the US refused to negotiate Putin's proposals for mutual security.

Refusing to negotiate violates UN principles and is provocative.

So, abundantly provoked, Putin invaded.

Little known, about a month into the war, Russia and Ukraine were negotiating with Turkey mediating and the US tanked the talks.

UN principles require negotiation even after hostilities break out.

The US Sec of War at the time said 'Our goal is to weaken Russia.' This goal was behind the provocations.

I can supply further links to what I write here if you wish. M.mk (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:NATO, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop creating Talk page discussions that are unrelated to making edits to articles. In particular, please do not dump large quotes of copyrighted text into a talk page history, with no indication that it is intended for use, and no additional content of your own, as this is a violation of our non-free content criteria. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Co-author David Swanson is aware of this Wikipedia 'wrangle' and supplied to me that except from his and Medea's book. I intended to briefly add to the NATO article itself where the N Atlantic Treaty is at odds with the UN Charter, but another of you is pushing back on the idea in direct discussion with me.

Please don't class that as irrelevant, the great 'out' for an editor who doesn't like something. M.mk (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop posting copyrighted content on wikipedia. A claim of personal contact with an author isn't an adequate 'release' of copyright. And even if it were, it would have to be presented as proper quotes identified as directly from the source. Just republishing it with no meaningful interpretation or changes will never meet WP's guidelines. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

One of your recent edits...

Like, was this my edit request to add a Criticisms section to the NATO article?

If so, what I included surpasses fair use? M.mk (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• It did, because it wasn't clear what was an attributed quote, what was being reposted, and so on. You have to be very, very careful about attributing quotes and such. To be honest, criticism sections for major pages like NATO is not something that is very easily written. Give me a moment and I can give you some suggestions.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Do not post copyrighted content to Wikipedia. It violates copyright - we can have some limited quotes, but they have to be brief, clearly marked, and attributed.

Stating that you know the author is not enough to overturn this. For it to be used as it was, Swanson himself would need to come to Wikipedia and file a ticket through the WP:VRT. The issue with this process is that he would be changing the copyright status of the work in question. Under the current, restrictive copyright he has full control over his words. No one can do anything with it without his express permission, which includes profiting off of or changing the work. In order for it to be used on Wikipedia, he would need to release it under a compatible Creative Commons license that would allow people to generally do whatever they want with it, as long as the resulting work is under a compatible CC license.

Aside from that, even if Swanson is amenable to that there would still be issues with posting content verbatim. One is that the average person does not write in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. The average written work contains persuasive language, original research, and so on. There's nothing wrong with that in most writings and in the case of say, research papers and the like, it's actually something required for it to function. That's not the case on Wikipedia.

In your proposed section you make use of persuasive language and its unclear what is meant to be attributed to the people in the section and what is considered to be a general statement. Keep in mind that all content must be neutrally written. We cannot have opinions represented as anything other than that, an opinion. We also cannot phrase a section so that it looks like we are building an argument for or against anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

City Hall wins. Thanks for the elucidation. On to other things. M.mk (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, so when writing the biggie is to remember two things: we can only summarize what others have explicitly written on the subject and we must remain as neutral as possible. Well, there is also a third component: use the strongest possible sourcing, particularly in this situation since NATO is a contentious topic.

In this situation the best possible sourcing will be things like academic/scholarly works written by people who are summarizing what others have said and also (ideally) where they are not explicitly trying to espouse a specific goal or mindset. This would be things like journal articles, books put out through reputable academic/scholarly publishers, and the like. They've got to be out there, as I can't imagine that any major organization like this has gone without receiving some form of criticism and coverage of said criticism. Now, you can still use sourcing from outlets that have a clear specific goal/mindset, but keep in mind that opinions are going to be specific to the individual and they may not always include the opinions of a wider group or represent them accurately (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Moving on from sourcing, the writing would be a biggie. A good way to get ideas would be to look at other articles with criticism sections, particularly those for contentious topics where there are a lot of editors.

OK, so when writing the biggie is to remember two things: we can only summarize what others have explicitly written on the subject and we must remain as neutral as possible. Well, there is also a third component: use the strongest possible sourcing, particularly in this situation since NATO is a contentious topic.

In this situation the best possible sourcing will be things like academic/scholarly works written by people who are summarizing what others have said and also (ideally) where they are not explicitly trying to espouse a specific goal or mindset. This would be things like journal articles, books put out through reputable academic/scholarly publishers, and the like. They've got to be out there, as I can't imagine that any major organization like this has gone without receiving some form of criticism and coverage of said criticism. Now, you can still use sourcing from outlets that have a clear specific goal/mindset, but keep in mind that opinions are going to be specific to the individual and they may not always include the opinions of a wider group or represent them accurately (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Moving on from sourcing, the writing would be a biggie. A good way to get ideas would be to look at other articles with criticism sections, particularly those for contentious topics where there are a lot of editors. For example, look at the Amazon article - they aren't the same as NATO but are still pretty contentious and their section does a decent job of summarizing common criticisms.

So using that as a guide, you could phrase the opening sentence of the section thusly:

NATO has been the focus of criticism that include concerns over the organization's relevance in a post-Cold War world, alliances with certain countries, and inactivity.

From there you can include viewpoints from specific people, as long as you clearly attribute them to the person in question. So for Swanson, you could do something like this:

American anti-war activist David Swanson has lobbied for the abolition of NATO, arguing that the organization perpetuates war and inhospitable environments through propaganda, the promotion of militarism, and the backing of colonial powers and dictatorships.

If you had a quote from him where he succinctly summarizes his stance, you could probably incorporate that after the 'arguing that' statement - it just has to be brief, verifiable (no personal correspondence), and clearly marked as a quote.

For sourcing, I did find some promising sources - I found this book put out by SUNY, as well as one put out by Springer. They seem to give some general overviews of common criticisms from what I can see in a snippet view.

Once you have the sourcing and everything down, you can definitely repost to the article's talk page. To be honest, this isn't really a topic area I'd recommend for less experienced editors. This isn't meant as a knock, just that these pages are not the easiest to edit and have a very steep learning curve where wrong moves can be received far more harshly than they would for less contentious topics. I would absolutely ask for help from WP:POLITICS and even ask for someone there to help mentor you, if you wish to edit on this and similarly contentious topics. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, thank you for taking the time to significantly further elucidate about this issue. You've given beginner me suggestions and advice that I might now be able to make something of.

And your 'bedside manner,' as it were, encouragingly quite lacks the imperiousness of others I've run into. M.mk (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, M.mk. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "False or misleading statements by Bob Dylan".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:False or misleading statements by Bob Dylan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SomeoneDreaming was:

I'm concerned that this is a unacceptable content fork based on the discussion at Talk:Bob_Dylan/Archive_10#Dishonesty_--_Dylan_can't_live_outside_the_law which was linked on the draft talk page. Creating a separate article is not the right way to handle a content dispute. (Apologies for not catching this on my first decline.)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:False or misleading statements by Bob Dylan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's true the 'birth' of this proposed article was from a dispute, but, FYI, there is this article from which I took the title for my proposal:

False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump

If things must still be rejected, rejection aside, was the proposal otherwise adequate? M.mk (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)