User talk:184.15.25.90

July 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Palmer Report have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Palmer Report was changed by 184.15.25.90 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852001 on 2021-07-03T01:24:58+00:00

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Well you got the attention you wanted. You should use this block time to read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and our No personal attacks to avoid this in the future. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HighInBC Oh, I'm not going to read that if you refuse to do your job. You're going to wind up getting the whole website sued for false claims by two rogue editors. Sorry if I'm snappy at you, but they're actively engaging in libel (and can be proven to engage as such, mind you), refusing to let people edit the page, and calling anyone that disagrees with them as 'Stop talking to me.'

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm snappy at you personally, but if you don't do your job to keep wikipedia accurate, y'all are going to wind up being sued by Palmer - and he is going to win. I don't care for his attitude either, but all of this flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. 184.15.25.90 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you consider to be libel? I have seen your contributions. You have not removed anything. You made a comment about an editor's mother and reverted a blanking. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also administrators are not in charge of content, we have no special authority over content that a regular editor does not have. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A: I did remove content - actively blanking false content is removing libelous content. B: Libel is any written content about an individual that can be easily verified as false, particularly when it's opinion touted as fact. Palmer report is not a conspiratorial website (Easily checked), has been correct about the vast majority of his predictions (Easily checked), actively discusses the science behind his predictions instead of claiming 'there's no substance' like in an actual conspiracy theory (Easily checked.), and, most notably of all, has a legal ground to stand on. C: If you don't have the ability to do anything, get someone that does because like I said, it's not hard to prevent callous editing by individuals actively intent on spreading misinformation. If you don't do that, then stop talking to me because you, as you stated yourself, have no grounds in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.25.90 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I never said you removed content. You restored content. That and your "mother" comment is the sum total of you interaction with the page.


 * The current content of the article is seemingly backed by sources, and you you are only giving me vague complaints. I suggest when the block is over you go to the article talk page and make your concerns known politely there. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HighInBC People have made their concerns politely known there, even pointing out numerous aspects of the articles that are demonstrably false or, at the very least, biased. The same two users, a John and a Swag (who has been cited NUMEROUS times for false information on articles), constantly hijack anyone that points this out and undoes any point made with a generic 'that's not true' AND not backing up their source. At the same time, many websites find that Palmer Report is only slightly unreliable, such as https://www.adfontesmedia.com/palmer-report-bias-and-reliability/ that individually reviewed several articles and found that roughly half are above their 24 point threshold, some within their 32 point 'good' record keeping, and the vast majority rarely falling below a reliability score of 19 - or in other words, close to average (and on top of that, maintaining a slightly a left leaning but otherwise normal bias. As of July 2021, several of his predictions are, and have been, proven right even after allegedly being proven false - for example, the trump organization indictments of last week that have been predicted for months, alongside confirmed reports of more indictments coming - including confirmation from websites like the washington post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/prosecutors-say-spreadsheets-from-trump-organization-offer-a-road-map-for-its-indictment-where-the-investigation-goes-now-is-the-question/2021/07/03/f7df06f0-db81-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html, msnbc, https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump-organization-charges-could-open-indictment-floodgates-n1273078, the atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/trump-organization-indictment-tax-fraud-trouble/619353/, and motherjones, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/an-indictment-of-the-trump-organization-is-an-indictment-of-donald-trump/, along others. If you read the sources used on the article itself, the vast majority are either, A, opinion pieces, or b, generalized and only apply in the vagueist of ways (Example, the article citing 'Palmer was wrong about Susan Collins loosing' is a claim that many other people made, not just specifically the Palmer Report. One source, TheStar, https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2020/10/29/once-beloved-maine-sen-susan-collins-lost-her-touch-now-she-may-lose-her-seat.html. You can not claim in good faith that these are proper sources once you get to start reading them, THAT supports the argument of libel that's going to get people sued.

3: If you have the ability to dictate what I can and cannot post / do on the page, then you have the ability to do so with bad faith actors intentionally misconstruing information by not providing anything more than a biased set of 'facts' (Mostly opinion pieces) that vaguely match their ideas.

I guarantee that if I post any of this information 'Politely', I'm going to get called Blue Anon and told to never comment on the page again - It happened to user Eraserhead1 among others.

Do your job, or else get someone that can because I don't appreciate you blatantly defending a genuine political attack. If you don't want to do either, stop talking to me because I'm done with you wasting my time by kissing ass of two editors that have gone rogue. 184.15.25.90 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Your block expired some time ago. You are welcome to take your arguments and sources to the article talk page if you like. Just remain civil and don't disrupt the project with silly nonsense like personal attacks against people's mum. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)