User talk:24.156.30.244

November 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at RT America. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -REDACTED403 (talk)  11:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please be specific. I want you to say that it is vandalism (not "appears to constitute") and why this is fact and not your personal opinion about the factual information I inserted.
 * Don't suggest your lies, tell them like you believe them. 24.156.30.244 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Democratic National Committee cyber attacks, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are
 * consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts—including specific
 * cyber operations—and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources
 * I just wanted you to read how the investigators themselves say its all speculation. Does it feel dirty to be a propagandist or do you truly believe people shouldn't know the truth? 24.156.30.244 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Our sourcing
You wrote "Please note that every source in this article is a news article."

Our job is to document the sum of all human knowledge as it is found in reliable sources, and there are many types. We use scientific research and reports, official government documents, court records, testimony, books, articles in magazines, and many types of "news articles". Some topics are easy to document using some sources but not other sources. Some topics can only be documented using news reports, and only later do we find those events written about in books. When that happens, we also add those sources to our articles. All these types of sourcing are legitimate. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are
 * consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts—including specific
 * cyber operations—and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources
 * Here's the investigators themselves saying they're making this all up. It's literally speculation based on what they think a Russian would do. Hahaha do you feel like a dirty propagandist or do you think the "ends" justify the means? 24.156.30.244 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel you need to read wp:v, we need a source to say "we are making this up", and not your interpretation that is what a source says. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

SPA
I think you may need to read wp:SPA as well as wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Also read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)