User talk:Dakotacoda

Welcome
Hi, this is my Talk page. Feel free to leave me a message some time.--Dakotacoda (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That scholarship
Odd thing, every Google hit for the scholarship mentioned him. I'm sure you'll agree that is a bit odd, especially as some sources call it prestigious. The other thing is that we normally don't add fields, in fact some fields have been removed from infoboxes by community consensus as inappropriate (for instance, mission fields which are really just hype). I hope you agree that the honors field doesn't belong and the scholarship is, if it was real, not an encyclopedic honor. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

DS alert for post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
Valjean (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Big lie
Big lie is a lie so dangerous that it has led to deaths, threats of violence, insurrection, a destabilization of society, moves favoring civil war, and it threatens free and fair elections.

Wikipedia is a mainstream, fact-based, encyclopedia. Reliable sources treat mainstream ideas positively and treat fringe ideas negatively, therefore Wikipedia always gives more weight to mainstream ideas, largely because they are usually factual. The corollary is that unreliable sources treat fringe views positively, and Wikipedia does not give those sources or ideas any weight, largely because they are often false.

When dealing with fringe topics and how reliable sources and fact-checkers describe the contradiction between facts and misinformation, between science and pseudoscience, between mainstream and fringe ideas, the description and mention of the fringe view should never be made in wiki-voice, and should always be contextualized in some way. Not just attributed, but contextualized. Contextualization means we never describe a false topic without clarifying that it is false, and that applies to all articles. Readers should never be left in doubt about which view is likely true and which view is likely false. A "claim" is a statement without contextualization, and sometimes that's enough, but when the claim is without doubt false, we call it a "false claim". We tell the same story told by RS.

Trump uses both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda techniques.

Please read: Big lie, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, and Firehose of falsehood.

There is no evidence that Pelosi or the left-wing had anything to do with that coup attempt. Trump's supporters marched from his meeting at the White House to the Capitol and did what they did. Trump and his friends planned and inspired what happened that day. Even McConnell said it was all Trump's fault.

Please read: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol.

Valjean (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

DS alert for pseudoscience and fringe science
We make sure that a false claim or belief is labeled false. That's because RS do it. We don't leave readers in doubt and at risk of being deceived. When they leave Wikipedia, they know which road to take when they reach that fork in the road. We don't leave any doubt about which road is the right road. -- Valjean (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Bonnie H. Cordon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How is this a false claim, pray tell? Dakotacoda (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, how is it defamatory? Dakotacoda (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll forgive me for not playing this "pray tell" game. I also revdeleted the content from the talk page. I think the warning was quite clear--it said defamatory content with no or poor sourcing. Your sourcing was poor sourcing, and I'm being nice. If you don't understand that, please read the relevant policies--WP:BLP and WP:RS are good places to start. If you place this content on Wikipedia again, wherever it is (on a talk page or a user page), you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for "being nice." I ask that you please tone down the hostility. As a much-newer-than-you editor, I appreciate the correction, but, you're coming off as condescending. Also, as per your threat about banning me if I "place this content on Wikipedia again," I see where you're coming from, and I will not place the content from that website again. Dakotacoda (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)