User talk:Andra1ex

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre🚐 12:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice
If you wish to tell people not to use Wikipedia that is your choice but read WP:NOTDUMB, the threat will not get you your way. Also read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the first link. "Appeals to logic (which is subjective anyway) will also not succeed". First if logic is not a prove for you then there is nothing to talk about. Logic is the foundation of math, physics, and the rest of science. Logic is the core of any proof - not references, quotes, and authoritative persons. Second, logic is not subjective - logic is objective, otherwise math would have two opposite theorems, which is does not have. Andra1ex (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement that I am going to advise people on which part of Wikipedia to use and which to avoid is not a threat - I don't know why you feel this way, and it is really not that important - it is just a statement of what is going to happen. And it is my right to do so. Andra1ex (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Andra1ex, what forms of evidence would you consider sufficient to prove Russian interference in the elections? Who would have the expertise to determine such things? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * International court or a United Nations commission would suffice. Andra1ex (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple people were convicted in US courts. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. What for exactly were these people convicted?
 * 2. Provide links to the court documents.
 * 3. Provide explanation of why these convictions prove that Russia as a country interfered in the elections.
 * 4. Provide links to documents proving that the international organizations agree with the conclusions of these cases. Andra1ex (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Without you providing reliable sources to back up your claims, we cannot accept your opinion as a reliable source. We have multiple articles that cover the subject of Russian interference in the U.S. elections from many angles, and they are backed by thousands of RS. Here are some of them:


 * 2016 United States election leaks
 * Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies
 * Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information
 * Hillary Clinton email controversy
 * Cyberwarfare by Russia
 * 2017–2018 Department of Justice metadata seizures
 * Democratic National Committee cyber attacks
 * Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation
 * Dismissal of James Comey
 * Foreign electoral intervention
 * Foreign policy of Donald Trump (2015–16)
 * Podesta emails
 * Russia–United States relations
 * Russian espionage in the United States
 * Russian interference (2016)
 * Russian interference (2018)
 * Russian interference (2020)
 * Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections
 * Trump Tower meeting

Have fun. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Is the quality of all these articles on the same level as of the article beeing discussed? Andra1ex (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to a Wikipedia article appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Ollie, this is not true : in order to maintain a neutral point of view delete "slurs" like "conspiracy", "antisemitic", "white supremacy", "far-right", etc.
 * Scholarship in the field is divided into those who believe the theory is correct and those who argue with it. But the Wikipedia should not pick a side. Andra1ex (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the consensus among reliable sources is one thing then we have to go with that. Other notable viewpoints can also be covered, in a proportionate way, but the attempts to launder "Cultural Marxism" into anything other than a conspiracy theory are not credibly supported. It demonstrably has its roots in antisemitism even if some people using the term are unaware of it. We are not picking a side. We are just telling it how it is without obfuscation. DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you response. I hope you understand that you are just repeating the same words without adding any new meaning. Just one example, the article says that the essence is that the "theory states that an elite of Marxist theorists ... are subverting Western society." - there is nothing antisemitic or right-wing about this statement. If some radicals used references to this theory it does not mean that the theory is responsible for it. Like Hitler supported good health and strong bodies among German soldiers, it does not mean that fitness is a Nazi-associated theory. Andra1ex (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We follow what the sources say, and they are very clear about this point. We cannot and will not follow your analysis of what seems antisemitic or right-wing to you personally. MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My analysis it not subjective, it is an objective application of logic to the definitions that the Wikipedia article provides. There are sources on both sides and only thinking (not following sources) can lead to a balanced analysis. Any encyclopedia has authors and their duty is to select a balanced set of sources. The current article is clearly biased to one side and uses derogatory terms to everything that does not fit the narrative of the chosen side. Please stop discrediting Wikipedia. Andra1ex (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. You are not approaching this the way Wikipedia does - we will continue to follow what the reliable sources say, and not your 'objective application of logic', which is flawed. As as already been explained, Wikipedia does not seek 'a balanced analysis' - for example we do not strike a balance between those who think the Earth is round and those who think it is flat - we follow the mainstream consensus. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Please explain why in your opinion an 'objective application of logic', is flawed?
 * 2. It is unfortunate that "Wikipedia does not seek a balanced analysis", since otherwise it becomes just a newspaper instead of being an encyclopedia.
 * Regarding your example of Earth being round or flat - it is good to mention both points of view and demonstrate evidence proving that the flat Earth theory is immediately debunked by hard facts combined via logical implications. Andra1ex (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed because you have not taken all the available facts into account - the premises you have based your logic on are incorrect. This is explained thoroughly in the Wikipedia article and its associated talk page. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Please explain why you say that "the premises you have based your logic on are incorrect". I have read the article, it does not demonstrate how these premises (see my first post) are wrong.
 * 2. No one is able to take all facts into account and it is not a requirement to have unflawed logic. Here is an example: given x=1, y=1, z=1, find x+y. One can infer that x+y=2 without taking into account the fact that z=1. Andra1ex (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to debate this with you. On Wikipedia we follow the sources, full stop. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that you following only the sources you like and are not willing to discuss or think. This is very typical for the non-STEM articles on Wikipedia. Andra1ex (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)