User talk:Shinealittlelight

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You keep making requests, as if there are problems. Are there problems in your opinion? If so, please quote. I'm happy to refactor anything I've written to help discussions go smoother. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. You don't need to change anything you have written. I'd like you to stop "warning" me about things, and please stop telling me not to make further remarks on the talk page for the Prager article. I have heard what you have to say on these topics. I appreciate your perspective. Perhaps you are wiser than I am. But I have decided to go against your advice and continue to try to improve that article. I enjoy such controversial topics, I have a broad range of expertise on a number of controversial topics, and I enjoy civil debate on them. If I am out of line in any way, please do go ahead and either explain to me or, if I simply continue to be out of line, please go ahead and escalate in the appropriate way within Wikipedia guidelines.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll do my best to avoid warnings, but they are a regular part of dispute resolution, even required under certain circumstances.

I'm sorry to say that you're out of line if you're not going to attempt justify your comments and behavior. Focusing on other editors and their behavior is pretty inappropriate in general per WP:BATTLE. You're also bordering on using the talk page as a general forum for discussion, especially in your interactions with Bus stop. See WP:TALK, which isn't linked from WP:BATTLE.

Overall, your approach has been to drawn upon you own personal opinion, then try to find a way to have the article changed to match your opinion regardless of Wikipedia's policies and the reliable sources. This type of behavior can easily result in a ban or block, especially when the subject matter falls under discretionary sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

But you will apparently not say what you think on this score. Given this comment, I hope you'll consider taking some time to help deescalate the situation. The article and consensus-building can always wait. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, I appreciate your time and effort explaining things to me. And I don't want to be disrespectful of your time, so if you don't want to continue discussion, that's totally fine, and you don't even have to reply. But if you don't mind, I'd like to follow up because I feel like I really don't understand where you're coming from on what I think is the key issue. Specifically: You have judged the NPR source in this case to be free of editorial bias. Is that not your "personal opinion"? To me, it seems that this is a controversial matter, which requires people to express an opinion and try to build consensus. But you are saying I'm wrong to express an opinion on this score, right? So where am I making an error here?Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Specifically: You have judged the NPR source in this case to be free of editorial bias. Is that not your "personal opinion"? Now you're making up others' viewpoints.. That's more WP:BATTLE.

The section from POV that you're trying to understand is about editorial bias of Wikipedians, like the bias you're working from. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought you regarded the source as free of bias because of what you said. If that's mistaken, and you think the NPR piece is biased, then please let me know. But I wasn't making anything up about you. Biased sources call for careful treatment. We have to figure out whether a source is biased to figure out whether to subject it to that special treatment.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But I wasn't making anything up about you. You made an assumption, and used it as a point of contention.

We have to figure out whether a source is biased to figure out whether to subject it to that special treatment. No we don't, and continuing to do so as you have so far may lead you to being blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think I was assuming. I asked if you thought the NPR piece was free of editorial bias on the talk page. In your reply, you said that the piece "seems a very good summary and would be a POV-violation to remove." It is of course possible I misunderstand you. But I took this to be an answer to my question: to you, the piece seems like a good summary of Prager's views that does not introduce bias into the Wikipedia article, and in fact it would introduce bias to remove it. Again, tell me I misunderstood your remarks. But don't tell me I assumed or made up your view, since I was basing my take on what you actually said. In any case, I think we have here the root of our disagreement. I think that WP:NPOV requires us to assess whether sources are biased or not. You do not. I don't understand how you can think this, given that this is what the policy says. But that's our disagreement.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV requires us first to put aside editorial biases, such as those you demonstrate and don't appear to be able to manage. In that light, I feel there's much better use of my time than to trying to prevent you from being blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, let's quit talking here. It isn't productive.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: BATTLE : Getting an editor blocked or banned from an article or topic can take a great deal of work, and often results in a great deal of unnecessary drama. I'm hoping that my comments will get you to change your behavior: to keep your focus on content and policy, rather than on other editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My focus has been on content throughout. I'm trying to improve the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shinealittlelight. It's very unusual for such a new user to get stuck into such a protracted debate, so I'm sorry that that's been your first experience here. Regardless of who's right, arguments between editors are the least fun aspect of Wikipedia. I hope you find other articles to edit that don't involve the same strife. I'll save my opinions on the actual argument until I'm sure I've understood it. By the way, do you mind me asking why Dennis Prager was the first article you ended up editing? I always like to hear how people got into this. Mine was a book series I'd never heard of, Franny K. Stein, because I found a typo; not so interesting, so I leach off others' stories. › Mortee _talk 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice and help. I have broad interests that tend toward controversial subjects. I saw that the Prager page was, in my view, biased, and I thought I could make a suggestion that all sides might be able to agree with. I actually enjoy debate when it remains calm, and I was looking forward to working toward a consensus. I still do! This is not unpleasant for me. I feel I've learned a lot already, and it has been fascinating. I am very sorry, and frankly puzzled, that it seems to be so upsetting to two of the involved editors.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to have escalated quickly. I've got myself interested in the discussion now, so I'll try to mediate if I can. It might be that sticking my nose in isn't helpful, but I've done it now. In any case, welcome. If editing questions come up on other topics in the future you're welcome at the Teahouse or on my talkpage. › Mortee _talk 02:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I'm very glad to have your involvement, even if you disagree with me in the end.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You may want to go back and sign this post. (For others' unsigned posts you can use {{unsigned}}. For your own, probably better to correct by copying a previous example of your signature and adjusting the timestamp). I frequently forgot to sign posts early on; this is just a friendly reminder. › Mortee _talk 02:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee, thanks! I usually sign, but I somehow missed it that time. Not sure what time exactly I wrote the original comment. Should I just stamp it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinealittlelight (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You could have got the timestamp from the page history, but since no-one's replied it doesn't matter. Times are mostly useful for seeing in what order things were said. › Mortee _talk 02:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mortee, I should have thought of that! Lol I forgot to sign my last comment to you, too. I'll be more careful about that. I've now made some additional contributions to various other articles. If you're interested, I'd be glad to get your feedback to be sure they look ok.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and it's great to see someone working on analytic philosophy, particularly Russell. One minor suggestion on that edit - any direct quotation ought to have an inline citation. I can't find the policy right now (not on my C list; I'll add it when I remember where it is) but it'd help readers who want to learn more. If you have it to hand, that would be great. Very happy to see you branching out. › Mortee _talk 03:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on the revised wording at Prager. On a separate note, are you aware that you have not edited your User page? Even one exclamation point would activate it, after clicking "Save", of course. But it is up to you. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! A little positive feedback is really nice given the circumstances. We'll see how it turns out! Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has been a depressing experience. I welcome your input and hope you'll be back. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not depressed. Actually fascinated by the experience so far. I came in expecting not to be allowed to contribute. I'm not done trying. I still expect that no contribution from me will ever be allowed. But my proposals can and will get better until it is clear that there's no legitimate reason not to accept them. I'm a capable writer and researcher, and there's no rush. But don't worry about me. I'm not upset, and I cannot lose. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just saw that the page was massively changed. My contribution is now not necessary. I'm happy with the result. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PragerU ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Glad to discuss on the talk page, as always. I thought we were collaborating via our notes on the reverts. I agree that further discussion belongs on the talk page at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

See previous arguments. Feel free to take it up on the talk page. If Kruse's twitter feed calling this professor incompetent is due, then so is her response that was published by a RS It's very difficult to take that comment as "collaborating" --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

At that point I was indicating that further collaboration needed to be on the talk page. I'm still happy to collaborate, and I'm going to continue to do so. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2019 (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. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a little history. At the time the RFC was started, the lead didn't even contain that phrase. Isn't that astounding?!! (That sort of undermined the whole RfC, but no one seemed to notice.)

The person who started the RFC depends on unreliable sources and allows that to influence their editing and discussing on talk pages. They really wished to get rid of all three words because they don't believe it's a "conspiracy theory" or that what Trump said was "false". Well, they're wrong on all counts because RS accurately use those words to describe the situation, and so must we.

On occasion, a RS can get it wrong, but most RS get it right, and good editors follow RS and allow RS to form their thinking. Those who don't do that rightly get in trouble. That's what's great about editing here. We can learn an awful lot and bring our POV into line with the facts. To me, that makes this place a huge magnet, because I want to learn what's true, and I want to document that. I don't know what's true without RS telling me.

Here's how the lead sentence read at that time:

• "Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018[1][2][3][4] that has been shown to be false.[5][6][7]"

Regardless of that long separation between "conspiracy theory" and "false", since the lead sentence did contain those words, and it was causing much contention from a certain subset of very vocal fringe editors, I decided to resolve the matter by moving the "false" aspect to the last sentence of the lead. See this diff:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump)&diff=892376578&oldid=892369978

That pretty much killed off the RfC discussion and most editors drifted off to deal with other matters, but the RfC was never closed properly.

Sometimes a compromise can stop a lot of contention and edit warring, and that compromise seems to have worked, even though it rewarded and encouraged fringe editors for their disruptive efforts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Awilley might be interested in this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We've been over this before, and further discussion seems to me unlikely to get the two of us on the same page, but I'll repeat myself to remind you what I said. I continue to think that 'spygate' is highly ambiguous in RSs, and that, even if we cherry pick the most specific and conspiracy-theory-ish meaning, the Spygate theory (in that sense) is unsubstantiated and implausible, but hasn't been shown to be false, and hasn't been characterized as false except in the Vox headline, which is not an RS. I specifically think (as I've said before) that Kessler applies 'four pinocchios' to claims that he regards as baseless even when they're not known to be false. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that's a different matter than the main point of this thread. If you want to go into more depth on that matter, I'm always willing to discuss it, but it would probably be best to do it on a personal talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer: sure, we can talk more here if you like. Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff, and I'm willing to try to work it out with you just for the heck of it even if we're unlikely to succeed in achieving agreement. The issues that have really been on my mind are these:

1. Do RSs call the Spygate theory false?

2. Do RSs use 'spygate' the same way as each other?

3. Should there be an article on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (i.e., the Russia investigation run by the FBI from July 2016 until Mueller was :appointed)?

4. Should it be this article?

5. Did the FBI surveil the Trump Campaign during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation?

My own answers are: No, no, yes, yes, and obviously. I'm genuinely and sincerely shocked to the point of feeling like a crazy person by the fact that there are people all over that page who deny that the FBI suveilled the Trump campaign, so that one is especially on my mind. Anyway, I'd be happy to talk about any of these things. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Good start. Now this is just my informed understanding. You can help straighten out my thinking if I get this wrong.

1. Yes, in many ways.
2. Not anymore. In the beginning it was about Trump's May 2018 tweets, and that's what the article is about. His claims were notable enough to justify creation of this article. Since then the sources have gotten sloppy. We should not follow that kind of creep. This article has an original, limited, scope and we should stay on-topic. The article was created about one set of accusations by Trump about one informant, Halper. What happens later about spies and spying can be in another article, or as Further developments in this article. See my sandbox: Surveillance of the Trump campaign (disambiguation).
3. That article has existed for a long time, but not with that title. It is now part of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)‎ article. Operation Crossfire Hurricane happens to also be a RICO enterprise investigation.
4. No, this one is about a specific Trump conspiracy theory about one informant. It has a very limited scope. It happened and is over.
5. Of course, and I don't know of any editor who denies that such surveillance occurred.

I think you're seeing a phantom straw man, and that's why you're "feeling like a crazy person." Surveillance occurred, should have occurred, it was done in various ways, it was done legally, done without political motivations (in fact it was done very discreetly so as not to influence the election), done as part of the Russia investigation (which included the hundreds of secretive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians of all stripes, including known FSB and GRU agents). I know of no editor who denies all this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, ok, a lot here. Let me start with the surveillance issue. Here are examples I find currently on the talk page (there are more, I think, in the archived pages):

... we can't state in Wikipedia's own voice that there was FBI surveillance of his campaign (especially since the truth appears to be the opposite...).

...oppose ... [the title 'FBI Surveillance of the Trump Campaign'] until their is evidence of it actually having happeneded

[the title 'FBI Surveillance of the Trump Campaign'] sounds like it came from InfoWars.

FBI surveillance of Donald Trump campaign - fails WP:FRINGE

Nothing in that source suggests that Halper was "surveilling" the Trump campaign

Seeing these, do you still say that no editor denies that the FBI surveilled the Trump campaign? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't noticed those statements, or I interpreted them otherwise. Were some of these from RfC comments? I notice that the last one is about a source, not necessarily about the existence of surveillance in general, but I don't have the context.

Regardless, I totally affirm that there was legitimate surveillance, but not spying. I know, it's a choice of words, but nevertheless, there is a substantive difference. Words matter and Trump admitted he chose to call an FBI "informant" a "spy" as an act of pejorative rebranding. The first word is neutral, while the second is pejorative when applied in the way Trump and Co. do it. They are engaging in political propaganda.

Intelligence professionals deny that Trump was "spied" on. They are uncomfortable with his choice of words, hence part of the huge reaction when Barr said "spying", rather than honestly admitting that Trump and Co. were surveilled as part of a legitimate national security investigation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All of the quotes I provided are from the current RfC that is open right now. Very disturbing to me. Maybe I don't understand what these editors mean, or they didn't express themselves well. I don't think I'm missing context. I think that whoever decides the RfC will take their claims at face value, and if it were me and I didn't know a lot about the issue, I'd think there was no consensus on whether surveillance occurred. Anyway, perhaps we can at least agree that surveillance occurred, and there is at least an appearance that several editors are (very surprisingly) denying this on the talk page.

On issue 2, the meaning of 'spygate', your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that, originally, this term referred to all the claims that Trump made in his tweets, which several RSs regard as amounting to a conspiracy theory. But on the talk page, I provided some early sources in which (it seems to me anyway) this is not true. E.g., NBC news back in May 2018 said Trump has been referring to the FBI's use of an informant as "spygate". Why was NBC so sloppy early on? In a way, it isn't totally their fault: I think that it was never clear, and still isn't clear, what the heck Trump meant by 'spygate'. The original tweets don't say. He makes a bunch of claims and then says that SPYGATE is going to be a huge scandal. but he doesn't explicitly say exactly which allegations 'Spygate' is meant to refer to. And so sources--early and late--have been sloppy and confusing and inconsistent with each other in deciding what he meant, right from the outset. What we have done is cherry pick the "conspiracy theory" interpretation from Vox and NYT over the "inappropriately calling the legitimate investigation a scandal" interpretation from NBC news, or the still other interpretations of other sources. This is POV, it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Let me set the record straight because User:BullRangifer is lying to you and he knows it. When the RFC was opened on April 11, here was the latest revision of the page . It was changed afterwards and he knows it because he is the one who changed it to "Spygate is a conspiracy theory initiated by President Donald Trump in May 2018 that has been shown to be false." It is undeniable that the Trump campiagn was spied on, the only question that remains is what laws were broken? In fact, just today the New York Times finally admitted it. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Peace, my friend, he isn't lying. I too think he is wrong about some things. But he really does think that Spygate is a conspiracy theory that has been shown to be false. He thinks that claim is consistent with the claim that legit surveillance was conducted by the FBI. He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy, early in the campaign, paid a lot of money, that was politically motivated. He thinks that Halper was the informant, that Halper was not a member of the campaign, that Halper was not paid a lot of money (at least for being an informant), and that the surveillance was motivated by concerns about Russian influence in the election, and not by political considerations. He may be wrong, but he is sincere in my view. Correct if wrong, BullRangifer. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. What he is lying about is the timing of the RFC. He alleged that I started the RFC to make an issue out of something that did not exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Now that I understand better, I want to say: Who cares? The person who closed the RfC says that there was not a consensus against calling the theory false (I specifically double checked with him). I don't understand that judgment, but what can you do. Our side--the side that opposes calling it 'false'--lost the RfC however exactly it started. And no surprise, there are large numbers of experienced editors on the page who bizarrely don't acknowledge that surveillance even occurred at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, calling me a liar is a pretty serious personal attack. AGF. There is a difference between being mistaken, and therefore speaking an untruth, and deliberately stating an untruth. Only the latter is a lie. Now you've got me wondering if I got it wrong! I'll go back and double check. I'll be back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

Start of RfC

• Yes- keep current lead
• No- Change first sentence to "Spygate refers to the unproven allegation that the Justice Department under the Obama Administration illegally surveilled Donald Trump's presidential campaign.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The nearest diff from just before start of RfC shows that Rusf10 is correct. I got it wrong. My deepest apologies. The wording I quoted was apparently from about 24 hours later. I apparently got mixed up on my dates. Gotta be more careful! -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Shine..., you wrote: "He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy, early in the campaign, paid a lot of money, that was politically motivated. He thinks that Halper was the informant, that Halper was not a member of the campaign, that Halper was not paid a lot of money..."

There are several misunderstandings there about what I believe. Let me sort it out:

• "He thinks that what has been shown false is that there was a spy,"

• There was an informer. That is true.

• "early in the campaign,"

• Not entirely true, as some of this happened later in the campaign, but this point isn't very crucial. Trump has later claimed it happened in 2015. That's false.

• "paid a lot of money,"

• This is partially true, but we don't know how much Halper was paid for THIS surveillance. Trump is referring to facts that had just been revealed in the press. Halper had indeed been paid over a million dollars for his work, but this was between 2012 and 2016. PolitiFact explains this and rates the claim they are evaluating "false".

• "that was politically motivated."

• That was a false claim. It was part of the investigation into any possible connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference. Campaign members did a whole lot of very suspicious things with Russians, much related to the campaign, and they lied about it. That justified the investigation. It was not political.

• "He thinks ... that Halper was not paid a lot of money"

• See above.

I hope that helps. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, yeah, that's what I thought you thought more or less. That was a total derail from my perspective, but thanks for putting the record straight. If you like, we can continue discussion where it left off above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, there are two methods editors can take. Method A, sees editors including the 2019 situation into the article first. After that, then the 2018 situation is re-analyzed, and the ultimate position of the article is determined. Method B, sees us putting 2019 aside, and straightaway analyzing 2018 for its position, after that is determined, then the 2019 situation is added. It's up to you, which method you think will have more success. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure, let's look at 2018 sources. You've heard what I have to say. What do you think? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you’re asking me about what I think. If it’s about the Methods, I now think Method A will have more success for actually changing the view of the article. If you’re asking about the view of the article, I won’t comment until I actually re-view the 2018 sources. starship.paint (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The latter. Let me know what you think when you review 2018 sources. Meanwhile, I've opened the question of "news analysis" pieces at RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps let's wait for the RSN discussion to finish for a definitive view on the news analysis pieces first. Or we could do 2019 first while RSN is ongoing. Does RSN affect 2019? starship.paint (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I think your approach of attempting to change stuff from the lede is not making much progress. May I suggest inserting whatever content and sources in the body first, then you would be in a stronger position to use that content and sources to argue for inclusion of material in the lede. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:I agree with your view that the body should be changed before the lead. But, at present, the body never says that spygate is a conspiracy theory until you get to the final section on reactions, where that view is always attributed. So that's a powerful basis for having "conspiracy theory" show up first in the fourth paragraph of the lead, with something like "several commenters have said that it's a conspiracy theory" or something like that. That would reflect the current article structure. Anyway, I'll keep working on the body. But it sure would be nice if people could at least render an opinion on the most recent proposal you made.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to indicate that "conspiracy theory" should show up earlier in the article? Where should it be? Trump and his allies' allegations? starship.paint (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Lol. Well, I don't think that. What you and I agree about is that body should determine lead. I think we also agree (do we not?) that the lead currently features "CT" way more prominently than the body. So what do you think should be done? I think the lead should be changed to reflect the body. This is because I think RS do not generally make much of CT--there are only three sources I accept which do, but countless sources which do not--and so I think it should not be prominent. If you disagree, then you'll want to change the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I know what you want. Thing is, I think there is a low probability of what you want actually happening. This is why I'm suggesting to you methods in which you would probably have more success. starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Your advice appreciated, and I will take it seriously. Thanks. May I ask whether you yourself find the fourth proposal to be good? I mean, it's your proposal, so maybe it goes without saying. But you haven't spoken in favor of it. And BullRangifer hasn't weighed in yet. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I proposed it, so I do accept it. I’m fine with it. But, I think the proposal would have a stronger argument behind it if all the sources were already in the article. Get what I mean? starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I got it. I'll work on that when I get a chance. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are pretty selective about when you are going to make an argument. I'm starting to think that's smart. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's wise to pick your battles. A hypothetical example - I would be wary of any source pushing a massive deep state conspiracy extending up to the current administration (say Republicans Trump picked like Rosenstein, Pompeo, etc). It's hard to believe that the FBI was really trying to stop Trump getting elected when they refused to announce that his campaign was under investigation before the election, whereas they did do so for Clinton (which may have tanked her candidacy), which Rosenstein later cited to fire Comey. Anyway, other times in other articles, I don't always participate in all discussions because simply, I don't care about all of them.

However, do not assume that I am always picking my battles. Perhaps I haven't even seen the discussions on Spygate. I don't use my watchlist anymore, and there are so many articles on Wiki, some of which are definitely bigger fish to fry.

By the way, good job on adding references. Remember to also add the text / content for the references in the body. For example, attempt to discredit. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

- not the cart before the horse... Before using alternate definitions as an argument, perhaps it would be better if the alternate definitions were already in the article. starship.paint (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation, and without reading or analyzing every detail above, I'll just drop a thought here. Have you ever considered that highjacking an article isn't a proper thing to do? I've seen such attempts before, and had it happen to one of my better articles (Charlotte's web (cannabis)).

The Spygate article was written about historical events. Maybe Starship.paint won't object, but if someone tried to highjack an article I wrote, I'd be pretty pissed off. Of course ownership behavior isn't allowed, but if someone wants a different article, they should go and write it without highjacking an existing article that's about a different subject. I just had to say that. Carry on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer - I don't think it was hijacking. Not when the sources were provided. starship.paint (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't at all specific, so let me try an illustration, well knowing that they can rarely "stand on all four legs." Let's completely ignore anything we know about milkshakes (I haven't even read that article) and just use it as an example.

Let's say that a waitress in a little restaurant made a concoction that happened to taste pretty good, and when people asked her what it was, she said "it's a 'milkshake', because I made it with milk, ice cream, and some jam, and then I shook it. Since it tasted good, I started serving it to our customers and they liked it. People come from miles around, and business is booming! I've started experimenting with different jams and syrups, and they all taste good. Would you like to taste one made with chocolate syrup? It's a big hit around here."

The local newspaper, and finally national newspapers and magazines, started writing about this new concoction and featuring interviews with her. She became a celebrity.

Later, other people started calling their concoctions, often made with exactly the same ingredients, a "smoothie". They even started calling all milkshakes "smoothies". Now people are confused, because the makers of smoothies are damaging the advertising value of the old and familiar term "milkshake" to sell their smoothies, and they are trying to eliminate the term "milkshake", in favor of their "smoothies". Now they even add fruit or veggies to the mix and still call it a smoothie

I'm not sure if that illustration helps at all, but that's what I see happening here. Since RS tell us that Trump and Co. are trying to misuse the terms "spying" and "Spygate" to illegitimately rebrand all legal surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, are we even allowed to give this fringe and political rebranding any weight here, other than to note what RS have said, and that is that it's a counterfactual and deceptive conspiracy theory to make people think that it's wrong to investigate suspected wrongdoing by Trump in any manner? It should only be mentioned as a later development and given very little weight.

If one wishes to write about the subject of surveillance of Trump and Co., then write another article about it, and make sure to note that this use of the terms is a fringe and deceptive misuse of the terms. It still gets little weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I really don't know what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're saying I've violated some policy. I can't tell what proposal of mine you are criticizing. But I don't see how I could possibly be "hijacking" anything, or what that would even mean given that the article doesn't belong to anyone, and given that I've made good, RS-based arguments and sought consensus at every single stage. You and I do have disagreements about Spygate--that is, we have disagreements about what RS have said, from the beginning, about Spygate. And that shouldn't be surprising. It's a controversial topic, and intelligent people will differ on it and will struggle to reach consensus. That's what it should be like to work on these topics on Wikipedia. So, if you don't like talking about politics with people who have a different view than you, I suggest that you try editing in a different area. On the other hand, if you do enjoy this area, the right thing to say to me is "Hey Shine, thanks for bringing a new perspective to this article. I think it's really good not to have political homogeneity among the editors, because that tends to make for worse political articles." Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We share an important belief, one which I have summarized here:

User:BullRangifer/Negotiation table

I think we can agree that there are two aspects to the subject of Spygate, spying, etc. The original origins of the words, which were about Halper, and then Trump's later and much broader misuses of the terms to mean all investigations directed at him. I don't understand why you object to that. It's what the RS say.

I think it's wrong to conflate them and let the second aspect subsume and eliminate the first, although Trump would love for that to happen. That is the highjacking I'm talking about.

Instead, there should be two separate articles dealing with each one of those aspects. We have the Spygate article, and then we should have one about the investigations of Trump and Co. Go ahead and write it. I have made a start here: User:BullRangifer/sandbox/Surveillance of Donald Trump and associates. Feel free to help. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you that in some cases the argument just doesn't end in consensus, and that's a cute summary of that situation. However, I really don't agree with your view on "two aspects". I think that the earliest news reports included both broad and narrow construals of 'spygate'. The reason I object to your view on this is that I have read the news reports from May 2018. And, if I am correct about early variation in definitions of 'spygate', then I'm not conflating anything, but instead I'm correctly pointing out that we've cherry-picked the NYT definition. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The original authors of the article picked Trump's definition, and when RS discussed it, that's what they were talking about. They were not talking about other surveillance, and Trump wasn't using it in the broader sense yet. That misuse came later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. Trump never defined the term. The best RS didn't define it either. E.g., the AP didn't define it, and there are many other examples. But lots of RS in 2018 did define it, and defined it broadly to mean "there was spying on the campaign" (NBC, ABC) or "there was illicit spying on the campaign" (LA Times) or even "the FBI gained information from the campaign using an informant" (Kessler at WaPo) or ... I'm repeating myself. The NYT did define it your way, though. So that's the cherry we've picked. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Defined", as in the way he used it. That's all I mean. Your sources from May 2018 were all talking about Halper's actions in different ways, but still about the narrow use of the term Spygate as Trump used it. Strictly speaking, that is not "other" uses as in the broader sense referring to any and all surveillance and investigation of the Trump campaign. Trump started doing that later because it was only later that he learned about it. He couldn't use it in a broader sense until he got that knowledge, although we know he does speak and guess about things he doesn't know about, whether real or imagined, all the time. He just makes shit up. First came the narrow use about Halper, regardless of how it was worded, and later came the broader use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we disagree, and I'm choosing to AGF and remind myself that diverging perspectives can be a good thing, just as you said above. We do agree about that much :) Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's best to leave the sockpuppet alone. No one knows Wikipedia policies within a day of starting their account. They must have reason to hide their previous edits. starship.paint (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, will do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess the 'fringe' view you mentioned did turn up after all. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here I was trying to come up with an absurd hypothetical, but I guess nothing is too absurd for Jimmy Carter. Now we can test my prediction that it would be included in some Trump-relevant article! Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Jimmy’s article. Not sure about other articles. Though it wouldn’t be fringe since I’m sure many many many outlets reported it. starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If a lot of outlets report that Alex Jones believes in something, that doesn't make his view non-fringe. If Carter's view isn't fringe, it's not as you say because it has been widely reported, but rather because it is the view of at least a substantial minority. And of course it probably is the view of a substantial minority, and it probably can be included on that basis, attributed of course, even though it's obviously an absurd view. For similar reasons, Cohen's view should be included. What will happen, though, is what has already happened: dumb-bunnies and former presidents alike will be allowed to speak in our articles, so long as they hold the right (I mean the left!) opinions. Meanwhile, Princeton experts will not be allowed if they say something that does not fit the desired narrative. One funny observation: Carter's view is apparently a conspiracy theory, since its a theory about a conspiracy. Lol. What a sham. The editors who argued that conspiracy theory = theory about a conspiracy would never say that Carter's view is a conspiracy theory. Think about that--it's just obviously a crazy level of bias. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Not going to reply to that. Not a concession, because I'm leaving (not sure when I'll be back). Sorry I couldn't finish up on Spygate - Haaretz is a parting gift though. Take care. starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Totally a concession. Lolol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

12 years and over 1000 edits never seen such intellectual dishonesty. But its been enlightening because I see the true value of wiki. A colossol waste of time and if your side finally brings around NPOV what have you won? Victory over cretinous dishonesty. Your objective nature inspired me but I have no desire to wrestle the pig anymore. Good luck to you, hopefully you choose your battles wisely. I am too weak to resist returning thus closing the account is the only way. Batvette (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; I wish you all the best. I've gotten interested in part to see what happens when a reasonable conservative tries to play by the rules. So far, the result is not encouraging. But that's an interesting and enlightening result in itself. I've also tentatively reached the conclusion that, on anything political, Wikipedia is like a lot of third-rate news media: they aggregate news pieces according to DNC talking points, maybe adding a little extra dose of dumb on top. That's certainly what we're seeing here. I suspect that there are editors who could not identify a single DNC talking point with which they disagree. But I like to see irrationality laid bare. It's sort of fascinating, though I suppose also sort of terrifying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you or anyone wonders where I went, R2 filed an AE case against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_%28IP%29. I didnt see it right away. Perhaps my defense wasnt as strong as it could have been and the case had merit. However one admin closed the case just 47 minutes after I posted my side, without any further input from any other admin. Does this sound fair? Sounds like only one side was allowed to be heard. Furthermore, this was posted from an IP not long after(never interacted with them before dont know them). {Comment redacted per R2's request below} This was immediately reverted by the admin that quickly closed the case. IP returns and is identified as user Astrofilm, a new account, reposts his comment but removes the last half of the comment containing the liberals argument. Admin returns, reverts again then with no explanation indefinitely bans user astrofilm and his IP. Obviously I could appeal this bizarre action but why. Just thought you should see this. Im banned indefinitely from editing any pages or articles in post 1932 US politics. I also dont quite get why R2 needed to open that case. He and starship posted warnings on my talk page about 2 days ago (I reverted them but you can see them in history) and I dont think I posted much of anything after. I can only say this validates my unvcivil attitude. Cheers. Batvette (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. To be honest, I don't think your hands are clean here. You weren't focused enough on content in my opinion. But I agree that it moved too fast and the ban was too severe. And I wish there could be more peace, more camaraderie, more self-reflection, more attempt to work with each other, and a stronger sense that having many political perspectives represented among the editors is not only good, it's essential to the project. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Shinealittlelight, I appreciate that response. Batvette might not understand that he wasn't banned for this political views, but rather for his disruptive behavior. Also, he might not have understood that the comment he copy-pasted here from the IP was posted by a long-term blocked user who has lately taken to harassing me. Some of their allegations are also false. Their comments were removed per our policy on block evasion. Per the same policy: Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. This wasn't exactly reinstatement, but the concept remains. Shinealittlelight, since it's your user talk, would you please remove that quote, or at least the parts that are about me? R2 (bleep) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, R2, I'll redact it; no harm in doing that at this point, I think. I've heard what you had to say, Batvette, which was the point in posting it here anyway. I really would have liked it if all of us could have been friends. I know that sounds a little corny. But it's true anyway. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed my hands werent clean which is why I said "the case had merit" in my post. Was I divisive? Im not sure how to respond to that, when I count 28 individual editors challenging the article, largely on non NPOV grounds, and R2 described it as a couple I was going to fight. When he harangued me on my talk page for personal attacks and the next day in the talk page called me the peanut gallery, I wasnt worried about being civil any more. Anyhoo enough polluting your talk page with my problem, you looked at it and Im sort of satisfied with that admins response on my page. This whole thing will probably be good for me anyway. So on that thanks R2 for enriching me. Happy wikiing.Batvette (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You're both stuck on the literal use when we're talking about a figurative/metaphorical use. I am prevented from using the Wikipedia term for doing that on an article talk page, so I'll let you know here. It's called IDHT (refusing to get the point) and disruptive behavior. It might be possible to disagree on use of the term rebranding for many other reasons, but doing this is a violation of policy and logic on several levels. Why do you refuse to do the obvious and right thing by staying on-topic when discussing this metaphorical use? By insisting on talking only about the non-figurative use you are deliberately staying off-topic, and that makes communication impossible. That is stonewalling. It's not only a violation of PAG, it's not fair. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we're arguing in good faith. Your argument is just not convincing. Trump did not, even metaphorically speaking, rebrand informants as spies. More importantly, though, it really doesn't matter whether I'm right, because your proposal is out of step with RS, which only use 'brand' and not 'rebrand'. Drop the stick. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing: let's try to assume good faith, ok? Sometimes your argument doesn't convince someone who is discussing the matter in good faith. That's how it works here. It isn't personal, and I see no reason for you to come to my talk page and accuse me of being disruptive. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits on the relevant articles - seem like honest attempts to counter Wikipedia being turned into a propaganda vehicle.

"Careful, Icarus" is a reference to Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show - easy to find on youtube. Not to everyone's humour - but at least it's humour! Cheers! tildetildetildetilde

I have located this. Would this be relevant? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Lol. I miss Ferguson. Too late on propaganda vehicle! Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

On 3 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mueller probe was born in a crossfire hurricane? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You have been asked by multiple editors to withdraw your pointed and serious personal attacks against @Tsumikiria: and have explicitly refused to do so. This is a galling violation of WP:NPA and WP:IDHT - and this warning is to advise you to immediately cease this approach, to apologize to Tsumikiria and to strike through your personal attacks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, Simonm223 just beat me in adding this. You have basically stated that an editor supports terrorism based on nothing and refuse to redact clear personal attacks.O3000 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The behaviour mentioned above is enough to get you blocked in the ordinary course of events, it's also possible that you could be topic banned as a sanction. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the user supports terrorism. I said that the user supports Antifa, a violent extremist group, based on the user's own statements. And I said that enthusiastic public support of such a group does tend to undermine a user's claim to good faith. If that's worthy of a ban, then have at it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear, you are refusing to redact your personal attacks? Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that I've made personal attacks. I'm not redacting anything, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You stated that the editor believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's what antifa believes, and the editor has stated support for antifa. Any means necessary = by violent means. That's how it has always been understood. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Any means necessary = any means necessary. That would include flying planes into buildings. Antifa may be a bunch of disusting assholes. But, I haven't seen any evidence that they believe in such -- and certainly there is no evidence that the editor believes in such. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The term is a term people like Malcolm X use when they want to say that violence is called for. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what a person believes - you're supposed to comment on the content, not the person making the edits, not their motivation. That's precisely what WP:NPA is about. (As an aside, your attempt to assign opinions here seems like an example of the association fallacy. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course we have an article about By any means necessary.. El_C 16:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you were aware this was coming. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)