User talk:Darouet/Archive 1

DRN notice
There is a discussion involving you at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request by EricHaim
Hi Darouet, I would like to discuss your removal of the edits I made to the page "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I agree that the edit lacks citations which I am happy to add. There are only two that are critcal, (1) the text of the law itself and (2) the text of the Authorization for Use of Force on which it is predicated. My edit is almost purely factual and my other comments, such as noting that certain important terms are undefined and some potential implications are worded in a manner so as to intentionally not slant the edits towards my point of view which is critical of much of Sub-section D. I can try again and weave parts of what you put back into the edits, add cites, etc. However, the text you put does not appear to be accurate in critical respects. If I am wrong, I welcome being enlightened about. The text as it now stands includes in the overview the following: "the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the bill.[7] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources.[8][9][10][11][12]" Most important, where in the Act does it provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens? How can the statement that it does be reconciled with the 1021(e) which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” There are other points we can discuss. I note that there are extensive quotations and references to the actual provisions of the Act in my edits, whereas what you put back uses loose language like "terrorism suspects" which does not appear in the law or accurately summarize any of its provisions. The edited version while it certainly can be improved does not contain any inaccuracies that I am aware of and is therefore a significant improvement over what you put back which contains demonstrable inaccuracies. I would like to try to collaborate with you on improving this page if you are interested. Your gratuitous comment that I turned the article into a "sounding board for the State Department" is troubling and makes me question your objectivity and attitude. I only contributed to this article because I believe it is important that people have access to accurate information about legal provisions that threaten fundamental rights. Your statement about the State Department is tendentious and at least a little bizzare. Please respond. Erichaim (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)). EricHaim.
 * Hi Erichaim; thanks for your note. Please make a new heading in the talk pages of the NDAA 2012 article and write, or paste what you've written above, into that section so that we can discuss your proposed edits with other editors. Briefly, a good deal of your concerns above are explicitly addressed in the references provided in the article itself. Nevertheless I think you are correct in some of your points (e.g. 1021.e) and I look forward to your contributions to the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Darouet - thank you for your response. I am a new contributor and don't know many editing features and tools yet. Can you tell me how to make a new heading once I am on the appropriate talk page? With that info, I will do as you suggest. I think the most helpful thing I can do at this point is to also review the existing page and post on the talk page the specific propositions which I believe to be innacurate with explanations and citations that interested editors can review, and also post revised versions of proposed changes to page on the talk page so we can take into account responses to all of that before any further edits are made using the material I am generating. This is a very important topic and it is important that we get it right. As the creator of the page, I definitely would like to work with you to make it an accurate and informative page. I do have some specialized qualifications in this area. I am a practicing lawyer and independent legal scholar and have a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, both from the University of California at Berkeley. I have been a serious student of Constitutional law, history and theory for over thirty years. If it might be helpful, I would be happy to provide my e-mail address, which I think is available on the site (though I am not sure as I am a newbie) so we can confer directly about any issues we might wish to discuss. Thanks for creating this page. erichaim (Erichaim (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)). P.S. figured out re header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichaim (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

archived discussion, original research and synth
Hi - please don't replace all stale over three months discussion. What benefit do youy see in replacing discussions over three months old that you have no intention of further contributing to ? If there is something you specially want to reopen then start a new discussion and link to it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've returned only those discussions that were active as of the past month. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi - this cite does not mention Hoare - http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16032138 - and can you please provide an online link to this article Lewis, Paul, "The Guardian," 19 July 2011. or some more details about it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and review
I mainly rated in C because I wasn't sure that I had the expertise to determine whether it covered all angles and because the lead might be regarded as short. I have now reconsidered and rerated it B for WPA.--Grahame (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I answered you inquiry about the Dialog belonging in MILHIST. I personally disagree with the article being covered in MILHIST but laissez faire. You need and infobox similar to NATO or even simplified such as Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade. To progress the article further I would suggest at least getting a map with the associated nations highlight in green. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue looks better - the introduction is call the lead on Wikipedia - please see WP:LEAD. It does not need references as it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article (so the refs are in the body of the article). I would look at WP:LEAD as I think the current lead could be expanded to be a better summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

I would also look at WP:HEAD as the headers should follow that. Hope this helps and thanks for your work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno
HI, thanks for the note on my talk page. The article looks interesting and it's something I might want to work on. I'm on a wikibreak at the moment and only editing sporadically, but will definitely put it on my watch list and read through the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It would be great to work with you. I'm on a wikibreak of sorts as well, busy with "real" work. But when I come around to working on the Italian Dialogues I'll let you know! -Darouet (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
Hi Darouet, I'm happy to participate in a review process, though my knowledge of Chinese security issues is not as sound as it should be. Is there anything in particular that requires feedback? Also, could you advise on a timeline, if you have one in mind? Homunculus (duihua) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not the best person to ask to provide the Chinese perspective. I'm capable of doing Chinese-language research, but I can't say I revel in it. I'll aim to provide some more general comments sometime this week.Homunculus (duihua) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for dropping the ball on this. On a deadline in the real world. Will return to it soon. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai
Myself and several other editors have been trying to piece together the article on Bo Xilai, the Chongqing party chief who recently got dismissed and caused one of the most dramatic 'showdowns' in Chinese politics in recent memory. Would you be so kind as to return the favour and review the article? :) Colipon+ (Talk) 03:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Your Abu Qatada edit
Quite right. Thank you, appreciated.

@Truthkeeper above. Surprised to find you here. Any chance of you losing that '88' at the end of your monniker? We could love you loads and loads more if you do :). 216.166.10.195 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is super trivial, more a clarification. I dequoted and chopped out the mention of the BBC, since it would be clear from the reference, in order to perform a minor space-saver. Either way, the 'weasel words' are still present, only now quoted and the source cited in the text. Is that standard in Wikipedia, as your edit comment suggested, when weasels 'cannot' be avoided? Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with NDAA 2012 request
Hi Darouet,

I noticed you have been helping with the NDAA article. I wonder if you could take a look at this. I added the Administration's response to the Hedges lawsuit and subsequent blockage of indefinite detention by Judge Forrest. I used direct quotes from the official response. My edits were replaced by someone's interpretation of the response, without any ref source, so I am left to assume this is someone's personal interpretation. That doesn't seem to be in alignment with how Wikipedia works, though I haven't much experience here. I added a citation needed tag, but it seems like the statement needs to be removed altogether. Thank you for your help, in advance.  petrarchan 47 T c 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I completely understand your request. However, I don't think I am well versed enough in Wikipedia and with legal cases in general to take this on. The NDAA 2012 has been a real challenge to understand, even for those with law degrees. That seems intentional. The Admin's response to Forrest has not been reviewed by any reputable secondary source. Perhaps it's best to wait until media catches up with this story, and go from there. At some point in the near future, I will certainly move the bulk of the Forrest case to the body of the article. Thanks again for your help. petrarchan 47 T c 22:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Scratch that. I went ahead and moved the section, removing the unsourced opinion. petrarchan 47 T c 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NYT has covered Judge Forrest's block and subsequent actions by POTUS ~ thought you might appreciate [this brief overview].  petrarchan 47 T c 21:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thanks for the fascinating article: Charlie Savage has written consistently well on some of the legal aspects of the war on terror. I'll try to stay more in the loop on this. -Darouet (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. I know it's hard to keep up, if I come across other succinct articles to keep you updated, I'll go ahead and leave them here. petrarchan 47 T c 22:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Disposition Matrix
Thank you for creating the Disposition Matrix article! I hope you will continue with your great work on it as more information becomes known. The User 567 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Came here to say the same thing. Surprised that there wasn't an 'Obama kill list' article previously. Thank you! [[File:8 ball icon.svg]] groupuscule (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you both! And please feel free to contribute if you find interesting analysis online. -Darouet (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Disposition Matrix
Hi. I've nominated Disposition Matrix, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Allen3 talk 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm Gtwfan52. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Waco, Texas seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''Wiki article states subject was legally hung. Whether it is an example of bigotry or not, it certainly wasn't a lynching.'' Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gtwfan52 for your polite note. Please realize that my edit conveyed the fact that Roy Mitchell was hanged, not lynched. I didn't confuse this fact and actually wrote the article on Mitchell. I apologize, however, for the poor wording on my part (I was trying to be concise). Also, I should have provided a source. Am rectifying my errors now. Cheers. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks for writing the article on Mitchell. Very interesting to me since I worked on the Jesse Washington article. I've been meaning to sit down and take a look through it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Duggan
Hi Darouet! Sorry I took a while to respond. I share your concerns with the introduction of the article subject's race in the first sentence. Although race is directly related to the notability of the subject, I prefer for that kind of detail to be later in the introductory paragraph. First sentences are definitional and I don't like to 'define' people by their race. To me it currently reads more like a newspaper article intro than an encyclopedia one. Here's a suggested change:


 * Mark Duggan, a 29 year-old Tottenham resident, was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, North East London, England on 4 August 2011. The Metropolitan Police stated that officers were attempting to arrest Duggan on suspicion of planning an attack, and that he was in possession of a handgun. Duggan died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Public protest broke out in Tottenham over the circumstances of his death, motivated by suspicions that Dugan--a black male--was targeted by the police because of his race. The protests escalated into widespread riots, looting and arson in London and elsewhere.

Maybe you could suggest that and get some feedback? I do think his race is relevant to his life and death, but perhaps mentioning it later in the introduction would settle some of your concerns. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Disposition Matrix
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relationship between religion and science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Ayala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

NDAA 2012, COI disclosure and talk page suggestions
Hi Darouet! There's been a lot of questioning regarding my role directing a COI representative to active talk page editors. In the case of NDAA 2012 the editor who fielded most of the talk page engagement was you. I want to point you to two discussions where this process has been called into question, and give you the opportunity to respond.


 * User_talk:Ocaasi
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed and honest response. My apologies if you felt in any way obliged to do something you had reservations about.  I'm very glad we cleared that up and I'll work to prevent any ambiguity like that in future situations.  Your feedback is welcome if you have ideas about how to make that more explicit or accessible. Ocaasit &#124; c 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks for notifying me. I think something that might help editors on a page, when you begin this process, is making even more clear that you and other editors will reject edit requests that are unreasonable according to wikipedia's core policies. You might furthermore make it clear that neither you nor other editors are obliged to represent the COI party's POV, and that their COI should be taken seriously. I know you're trying to make this process transparent and are therefore trying to make it appear less onerous or wholly unfavorable to the COI party, but that should come second to maintaining transparency on our end, in my opinion. I'll be interested to see how things turn out. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming the process is kept, of course. I understand (I think) and respect why OTRS for COI was established, but would also understand if the community decided against it in the end. -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you review the language here and let me know what you think? Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I like it very much. You might consider swapping the first and second paragraphs in the first section, "Principle of Independence," while modifying both slightly: this places greater emphasis on the "conflict" aspect of COI, and sets a stringent tone. For better or worse, depending on your perspective. Also, the third paragraph in this section is a bit confusing because the word "requests," when it first appears, looks like it will be a verb for the subject "OTRS." -Darouet (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs swapped, verb confusion fixed. Thanks! Ocaasit &#124; c 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Repetition
I am not sure that you have read the English Wikipedia article on Galileo. There is a reference to Bruno in the Timeline, under the year 1600. This reference has been there for a considerable time. The word "spectacular" is clearly a peacock word. You used this in an edit summary, not your actual edit. If you think anything is "spectacular", you are welcome to say so in your own web-site, not in Wikipedia. The word "spectacular" is stronger than many words already banned as peacock words, such as "genius". It will be interesting to see you prove that Copernicus and Aristarchus were not "spectacular". Your edits and edit summaries never refer to the theory of relativity, according to which heliocentrism and heliostaticism are meaningless or untrue. If you think Pythagoras, Philolaus and other ancients were not spectacular, give reasons for supposing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga78675645 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Ga78675645 for your explanation. I used the word "spectacular" in the edit summary, but not the article, because Bruno was publicly burned at the stake in a spectacle. I did see Bruno was mentioned in the timeline, but doesn't it seem as though mentioning him in the text will allow readers to explicitly see the link between them? Also, thanks for your comments on Pythagoras, Philolaus, Copernicus and Aristarchus. I agree that they are brilliant people, but in the future, I'll try to be sure nobody ever uses the word "spectacular" in their edit summaries of these articles. -Darouet (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also never say "Jehovah". groupuscule (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Women in the Revolution
Thank you for this and surrounding edits. I often feel too dispirited by Wikipedia to step into thickets like that, but this clearly needed attention. You rescued the section quite nicely. Good job :) SteveStrummer (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve! I would love to spend more time on the article eventually: I plan on first completing an overhaul of the Robespierre article. In the mean time, I'm grateful for your contributions. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring edit conflicts
Dont do this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - Darouet (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Need link
Can you please link to the specific discussion that you referenced in your edit summary? Victor Victoria (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, it can be found here. -Darouet (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War
I would like to thank Darouet for returning the Iraq war article to a state of being a balanced fact-based article that is up to Wikipedia standards. It had become a one-sided opinion-based editorial that was far below Wikipedia standards. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request you again help with returning the Iraq war article to a stable version as it is again being vandalized by CJK. Thank you. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Truthwillneverdie, CJK deserves research and response to his talk page explanations. I don't agree with him, but I won't (and shouldn't) revert his edits without working hard to explain why. -Darouet (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Darouet, I agree completely. I hope you may find time to chime in on the article's talk page, I think you could help bring about a more NPOV.  -- Truthwillneverdie (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Genovese sauce) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Genovese sauce, Darouet!

Wikipedia editor Surfer43 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice article!"

To reply, leave a comment on Surfer43's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genovese sauce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirepoix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Genovese sauce
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead
There have been constant edit warring related to the lead section on the 2013_Ghouta_attacks aritcle. We get no new information, so please use the article talk page to gain consensus before making further changes to it. Also note that this, , is very likely a constitutes edit warring. --PLNR (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi PLNR, thanks for your civil note. My addition of the UN's statement regarding a ceasefire, and my revert to return it following Sayerslle's deletion, did not violate the 1RR; nor did the deletion of additional material unnecessary to the lead constitute a revert. "Edit warring" doesn't necessarily refer to violations of 1RR or 3RR however, and so I appreciate your effort to resolve things on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relationship between religion and science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francisco Ayala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta poll
You are of course completely within your rights to stop discussing anything, but I am a little confused since you brought up the poll. What about the discussion is/was unproductive? Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi VQuakr, thanks for your note. I brought up the poll because another user asked me to clarify. Editors on the Ghouta attacks talk page discussed all this ad infinitum previously, and as you know, these kinds of pages don't always bring the most pleasant interactions (despite the good intentions of many editors on all sides). So I'm a bit burnt out from the subject! -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and all your work on the Ghouta page. I agree that editing busy, contentious articles can be exhausting! I hope to see you around. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-communist mass killings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perlach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quantel Lotts


The article Quantel Lotts has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for articles about perpetrators listed at WP:CRIMINAL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quantel Lotts.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Quantel Lotts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 01:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Quantel Lotts.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quantel Lotts.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bernard Palissy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dauphine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Go Gawa poetry club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gosei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Boris Gusman
Allen3 talk 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OR
You realize edit summaries like this are original research, right? By saying "his interpretation is not one that would be supported by many contemporary historians" when you have no proof to back up such a statement is...OR. Also, being an historian has nothing to do with why the symbols are still used in the year 2014.--Львівське (говорити) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, my job as an editor is to evaluate a multitude of reliable, secondary sources, and present them to the reader in a fair way. That isn't WP:OR, that's Wikipedia. Serhy Yekelchyk isn't "explaining" what's evidently true, but rather contending that Svoboda's fascination with Stepan Bandera has little to do with celebrating the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If you read him and are so credulous that you need to inform readers of his opinion and let them know he's correct, you're not a neutral editor.


 * Here's what Ivan Katchanovski, a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, wrote in his 2010 paper "Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine:"


 * "Many previous studies imply that Western Ukrainians are pro-OUN and UPA because these organizations in the 1940s were mainly based in Western Ukrainian regions and because these regions became strongholds of nationalist parties and politicians in post-Soviet Ukraine, in particular, after the “Orange Revolution.” Viktor Yushchenko, his bloc “Our Ukraine,” and other nationalist parties, such as the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, which considers itself a successor of the OUN-B, have much higher popular support in Western Ukraine than in other regions. For example, Svoboda, a radical nationalist party, whose leader publicly endorsed all activities of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, won the snap elections to the provincial parliament in 2009 and formed a ruling coalition with pro-presidential parties in the Ternopil Region in Galicia."


 * I'll add it in along with Yekelchyk's opinion… and I won't be so presumptuous as to write, "Katchanovski explains…" -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is again original research on your part, ignoring the sources. The article you're citing mentions Svoboda once, it's purely talking about popular support and not necessarily Svoboda's direct reasoning. The march being cited happened in Kiev, not western Ukraine. As Katch says, this is the sentiment in western Ukraine, it does not encompass all of Ukraine and those who use the symbols, it's used nation-wide for a number of reasons, but in western-ukraine for specific reasons (typically).
 * Note also that I never contended your edit, but your edit summary, which reeked of injecting your own personal opinions into you reasoning and not objective analysis of the content. It's not the first time you've gone off course to prove a personal point. --Львівське (говорити) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno
I've reverted you there - the quote violates our policy on copyvio, please cut it down to no more than around 220 words. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! -Darouet (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right sector article: photo discussion
Hi! Please, look at my notice about a photo placed in the article "Right sector" and fix this misunderstanding. Best regards, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.199.46 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, I've responded there, thanks for writing. As I note there, it's not clear to me how Belarus is being defamed by the image. If you explain there we can bring in other editors. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Right Sector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Svoboda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any opinions?
There is a discussion concerning Haller's Blue Army and its pogroms here:. An editor wants to remove sourced info about its antisemitic violence because he claims it is undue weight (it is about 26 lines of text). Any opinions would be welcome.Faustian (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Faustian, I've left a note on your talk page here. Thanks for writing! -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

On removing mainstream 'neofascist' views description from Right Sector
Thank for bring the issue up at my talk page rather than at Talk:Right Sector, where a lot of contributors appear to be comparatively lacking in sophistication. Here’s the most current statement published in the Guardian:
 * Two men … were killed by buckshot … when pro-Russian demonstrators besieged an office of the far-right Ukrainian nationalist group Right Sector….
 * Kharkiv governor Ihor Baluta … said the “well-planned provocation by pro-Russian activists” began when unidentified men in a minibus provoked a confrontation with pro-Russia demonstrators and then drove off. When pursuing demonstrators caught up with the vehicle, it was parked outside the nationalists’ building.
 * [A] Right Sector spokesman … said his group … believed the minibus was left outside its office by others.

Meaning, by the same men who the local governor said were pro-Russian activists posing as Right Sector members. Have you found any evidence to suggest that they weren’t the same folks who Haaretz said were distributing Mein Kampf and the Protocols at Maidan? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's real and what's provocation in all these instances - I'm sure there's a lot of both going on. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

About RfCs: Suggestions for responding. “If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.” Statement should be neutral and brief. “If you feel as though you cannot describe the issue neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later.” I could try writing an ‘improved’ statement for the Right Sector RfC, but it would most likely be biased too! Can we work together on a new RfC? An idea for a new section title:
 * --- Should the article say in the lead that Right Sector is neofascist? ---

Ending RfCs. “There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster, it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation….” What would be the friendliest way to end the old RfC? (Trust me, I am not going to start a new one without passing everything by you first!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dervorguilla, it has seemed to me so far that the biggest hurtle we've faced is answering the question, "do mainstream media sources describe Right Sector not only as far-right and ultra-nationalist, but also as neo-fascist?" This has been a problem because I've found a host of sources that I think clearly describe Right Sector as neo-fascist (or fascist, or neo-Nazi, or their supporters or constituents, etc.), while you have written that these sources don't describe Right Sector in this way. Because wikipedia is based on sources, it's critical to resolve this question first, I think.


 * Not many people have commented: just one person mentioning that we could look up two articles, one of which is already cited, and another agreeing with me, but that's not sufficient to resolve anything.


 * One option we have is to go to dispute resolution, to be clear about what sources actually say.


 * Once this issue has been resolved, I think another RfC like the one you suggest could be helpful:
 * ---Should Right Sector's lead state that media sources describe its politics as far-right, ultra-nationalist or neo-fascist?---


 * That is the wording that is currently disputed. -Darouet (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. It appears that we may be close to agreement on the key question, Darouet. I think that in some ways the phrasing below may correlate a bit better with the implied meaning of the article text:
 * “Do any of the top 20 major news publications currently describe Right Sector or its supporters as ‘neofascist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ rather than ‘far-right’, ‘nationalist’, or ‘ultranationalist’?”
 * 2. We don’t appear to be interpreting each other’s statements (or perhaps their implications) accurately. For example, you’re saying that this article (mentioned by Balaenoptera musculus) agrees with you: “Profile: Ukraine’s ‘Right Sector’ Movement,” BBC News Europe, 21 January 2014. Here are the passages I’ve found that describe Right Sector:
 * little-known far-right group; [movement created by] the most radical activists; group consists mostly of young men with right-wing views; movement incorporates several far-right groups; organisation’s backbone in Kiev is formed by … football fans sharing nationalist views; radical activists.
 * I don’t understand how this material is describing the group or its supporters as ‘neo-fascist’, ‘fascist’, or ‘neo-Nazi’.
 * 3. I support your idea about going to dispute resolution. (The RfC article does happen to mention mediation as one example of how to end an RfC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right about point 2: the BBC article linked by Balaenoptera musculus, which we've used for Right Sector since very early on, doesn't call them fascistic. I've never thought it did - just wanted to mention that we already use the source.
 * As to DR, let's start that shortly. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We’ve got several BBC sources in there, but not the one he’s talking about, BBC News 2 Jan 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I’m not familiar with mediation, it sounds like it might get the job done with the least amount of effort! --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some “neo-logisms” ...
 * Russia borders on Ukraine. Russian ≈ neo-Ukrainian.
 * Hard-line nationalism borders on ultranationalism. Hard-line nationalism ≈ neoultranationalism.
 * neo-. a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” used in the formation of compound words: neo-Darwinism; …; neoorthodoxy. Origin: < Greek, combining form of néos; akin to new . Neo-, Dictionary.com. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You can definitely count me as a "neo-Darwinist"!

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Kitten of Courtesy
For Talk:Right Sector

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 

Sayer
He reverted the same stuff more than once, that's already a blockable offence. Sayer never seems to learn the rules. FunkMonk (talk)
 * funkmonk, it was the proxy war, and then the hersh drivel - those are different stuff. dreary to see you are still eager to see me blocked when all my effort is good faith edits - the chemical weapons section was full of Russian lying regime pov and lengthy quotes from Russian spokespeople - it was dreadful biased section,  -  you accused me of sockpuppetry before - lyingly -  Sayerslle (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been very uncivil from your very first edits (unlike someone like Sopher), that is the real problem. Constantly adding POV dreck from the likes of Elizabeth O'Bagy, Michael Weiss and "Brown Moses" (as well as other random blogs written by nobodies) just adds to the impression. Hersh is well connected with actual important people, whereas "Moses" just looks at Youtube videos. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never added anything from o'bagy as far as I know - you seem unable to grasp that Brown moses is recognized by RS as source for content and opinions etc - why has Hersh drivel been ignored largely by RS - deluded, he thinks because of jealousy or something, but its probably because it is rubbish, because it is irrelevant next to the U.N. report - as for civility and such - you know in 'hamlet' it says 'one may smile, and smile, and be a villain' - I do not smile, but I edit in good faith. agree that sopher is admirable for his civility in the face of it all. I don't know how he does it. Sayerslle (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606493156 your edit] to Right Sector may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * forces when it came to confronting police forces in the Yanukovych government. {cite news|last=Gatehouse|first=Gabriel|title=Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev|url=
 * patrolling the streets armed mostly with baseball bats, and sometimes guns. {cite news|last=Gatehouse|first=Gabriel|title=Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev|url=

Right Sector RfC
A thoughtful objection, and thanks for commenting. I’ve (silently) revised the question accordingly, from "its subgroups’ members" to "its constituent groups". You might want to strike out or (even better?) silently delete your comment and mine. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, thanks again. Also, I appreciate your consistent, measured tone. I do believe it'd be helpful to continue at dispute resolution, though your RfC as worded right now seems fine. -Darouet (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social-National Assembly of Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Our Ukraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Right Sector page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608850071 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F608850071%7CRight Sector%5D%5D Ask for help])

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609175910 your edit] to Iraq War may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector
Hello, I'm Dervorguilla. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Right Sector because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

A minor citation error made the contribution appear not constructive. It is now clear that the edit was meant to be ( and was ) constructive and was not vandalism. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yasser Salihee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Thermoscope page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618031892 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F618031892%7CThermoscope%5D%5D Ask for help])

DYK for Yasser Salihee
The DYK project (nominate) 09:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621829738 your edit] to 1033 program may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * small armies." Congressman Hank Johnson, a member of the [Democratic Party], has drafted legislation proposing to curb, but not end the 1033 program.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1033 program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Social-National Assembly
Dont you think, the article falls under the Wikipedia policy of label? Have you checked all sources, including the primary? SNA denies any association with socialism, but rather social-nationalism where nation is superfamily. You cannot call Syrian Social Nationalist Party anti-Semitic, because it propagates Semitic nationalism. You cannot really categorize it as Nazi party. But you go along with claims of certain point of views claiming them as absolute in regards to Ukrainian nationalism. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An article of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party where it explains difference between National Socialism and Social Nationalism. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The article of the Human Rights Watch does carry some degree of truth, but it mostly written as anti-Ukrainian comparing situation and laws of Ukraine with ones in the Western Europe. The problem is that there is no real laws on immigration as well as there is no real laws on self-government. All of those laws were grandfathered from the Soviet Union, yet with change of times, they were never updated. Now the conflict arises. However, the Human Rights Watch article does not really mentions whether those Vietnamese were legal residents, nor it really explains the origin of the problem. Apparently the Vietnamese diaspora in Kharkiv decided to build its pagoda in the city. Their petition was approved by the city's authorities while the city residents were never told or explained the situation and why it is necessary to build Oriental architecture in Ukraine. Now after the conflict is over, it seems as Ukrainians (or SNA members) attack people of other nationalities on daily basis which is completely bogus. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Aleks - yes I've read the sources, and also read through the SNA's own website. In Ruth Wodak's Bloomsbury Academic volume "Right Wing Populism in Europe," scholar Anton Shekhovstov describes the SNA as a racist "neo-Nazi group" that uses real and symbolic violence against immigrants and minorities in Ukraine. Haaretz describes the SNA as "a largely Kiev-based neo-Nazi organization," and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Right Union documents attacks by the SNA on foreigners or non-ethnic Ukrainians, something the SNA website itself boasts about. From your post above, it sounds like you support the SNA's politics and their attacks against minorities. If that's true, we have no common understanding about politics or ethics. I would disagree with you obviously about your characterization of the rights report as "anti-Ukrainian," since it's written mostly by Ukrainians. -Darouet (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , so, you disagree with me just because sources are Ukrainian? Is that your argument? Is not that a bit discriminatory? So, let me get that right. You would sacrifice the common sense just to defend anti-Ukrainian statements without studying them? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Scholar Anton Shekhovtsov is not even a historian, so is Haaretz. However, you choose to listen to them because they are not Ukrainian therefore they say the truth (just because they are not Ukrainian). Did you know that Andriy Biletskyi is a Russophone Ukrainian (Ukrainian who considers his native language Russian)? How does that fit your paradigm of the Ukrainian Neo-Nazism who promotes purity of the nation? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My previous posts do not necessarily inclined towards SNA as you claim. It is your assumption nothing less. I only stated that you are not being critical enough about the sources that although seems to be "creditable", are in fact carry questionable statements. You are simply being prejudice towards me due to my profile. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And why is Wikipedia posting sources of Per Anders Rudling who in his works accuses Viktor Yushchenko of promoting Nazism and inventing Holodomor? Is that a bit beyond of historians field of study? It is because of people like that guy, we had Ukrainian leaders slain in a broadlight in downtown of Paris and justify it due to anti-Semitism. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why you are accusing me in supporting of policy of persecutions against minorities, only based on my posts? Do not you find it offensive? Is that your way of argument to throw out accusations without analyzing? I am not advocating Nazism here, Darouet, but rather point out that the article falls under the Wikipedia of label. Did not you read my first sentence? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Aleksandr, if you have a problem with the historians Per Anders Rudling or Anton Shekhovstov, you can take those to the reliable source noticeboard. As far as my "accusations," I wrote that from your post above, "it sounds like you support the SNA's politics and their attacks against minorities." That's because you had responded to the sources' descriptions of the SNA's attacks on minorities in the following way: "the Human Rights Watch article does not really mentions whether those Vietnamese were legal residents, nor it really explains the origin of the problem. Apparently the Vietnamese diaspora in Kharkiv decided to build its pagoda in the city. Their petition was approved by the city's authorities while the city residents were never told or explained the situation and why it is necessary to build Oriental architecture in Ukraine." So, you are trying to justify, excuse or explain why the SNA attacked minorities.
 * None of the sources you take issue with are "anti-Ukrainian:" on the contrary most are authored by current or former Ukrainians. -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Aleks, Darouet's reply here that "you are trying to justify, excuse or explain why the SNA attacked minorities" may be indirectly related to a point he's brought up at Right Sector talk. (He tells an editor, "I am not certain that you have the competence to improve this article.")
 * Which of you has the factual competence required to understand whether "minorities" (Darouet's term) = "immigrants" (your term)?
 * 2. Darouet also argues that an assertion that a source is "authored by current or former Ukrainians" contradicts an assertion that it's "anti-Ukrainian".
 * Which of you has the competence required to understand whether other editors are likely to agree with the argument as phrased?
 * 3. Darouet also believes that it's helpful to "read through the SNA's own website".
 * Which of you has the factual competence required to read through a Ukrainian-language website? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Aleks, as I pointed out on the Svoboda page, the productive way to discuss these topics is to do research, which takes time and work, find out what reliable sources say, and then present those sources and text within them to other editors. There's no point in having a general discussion about beliefs here. -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Darouet, I've undone your revert of Aleks's beneficial edits at Social-National Assembly.
 * Mislabelling a good-faith edit as vandalism can be considered harmful to the encyclopedia. Please read WP:VAN, which explains how to detect vandalism. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Darouet, the Government of Ukraine would not promote fascist or nazi ideology (that is only Per Rudling could have came up with such assumption). I follow the Ukrainian news on daily basis. If the Social-National Assembly was allowed to be registered, it means that they were able to convince that they are not nazi oriented. Now, they convinced not only a clerk that sits at the front door and excepts visitors with petitions, there is a process. Anton Shekhovtsov, a recent graduate, specializing in Political Science claims that SNA is Nazi-oriented which seems to me are based on news he read in newspapers. I hope you would agree with me that newspapers are not really good source to base your understanding on the subject, you need to have some historical evaluation. I also said that Human Rights Watch article is fine. I their report is disturbing. However, would not you agree with me that they report is a bit dry? It seems that some of the stuff is piled on top of everything else. There is a story about attacks on Vietnamese, then there is a complain of Azerbaijani-native who was beaten up by somebody under assumption that they were Ukrainians or even from SNA. It is a salad of complaints intention of which is seemed to steer readers opinion in a certain way of thinking. I understand that stuff happens, but we are in gray area here. The way the Human Rights watch article is written gives some degree of scare that we have 1933 on our hand in Ukraine. Is that a really what is happening? The answer is no. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * On a special note, Per Rudling citations in the article with his article about Ukrainian Nationalists is outrageous. He is a pulp fiction editor, not a historian. No one labeling the Red Army as Nazis just because they conducted a victory parade with the German Wermacht in 1939 upon defeating Poland. I agree that there are plenty evidence that would prove Ukrainian nationalist movement such as collaborationist however it is not always and not in all situations. Per Rudling allow himself statements of ridicule that are insulting towards the Ukrainian nationality and history. Look at his wikipedia article that tries to portray him as a victim of the "stupid, cave-living nationalists of Ukrainian diaspora". Who needs him anyway? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't we designate a section in the article that talks about critique on the subject instead of simply labeling it without official recognition? In the past, the first sentence you read about Svoboda was that they are Nazi party. Is that normal for wikipedia? Why do we need bring politics in wikipedia and allow it to be a tool of propaganda? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I bet Per Anders Rudling is even getting paid by Alexey Miller (who signed his letter of support against the Ukrainian diaspora) to write all this dirt on nationalist movements in the former Soviet republics. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Aleks, my talk page is not the appropriate venue for your ideas about Ukrainian politics. If you want to discuss any specific articles you should do so on their take pages, and when doing so you should stick to sources and text. -Darouet (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries
I notice that you're an NPOV editor when it comes to Ukraine conflict Wikipedia entries. I am currently under severe attack -- see Haberstr -- for also being an NPOV editor of Ukraine conflict entries. Any comment or support at the Arbitration will be greatly appreciated! Maybe if enough of us protest the obvious, anti-Wikipedia bias, we'll get things moving in the right direction.Haberstr (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Haberstr - I've read through that effort to get you topic banned, and I think it has no merit, but nothing I write there will have any effect. Right now, it looks like the responding admin is taking issue with your statement that there is an "organized" effort to edit on Maidan and contemporary Russo-Ukraine related articles. I haven't investigated that and have no idea if it's true, though it is clear that many editors are editing on the same groups of articles.


 * In terms of the actual articles themselves, I agree with you completely and do admire that you've tried to improve them, but I'd advise that you stop. I know that sounds like a horrible thing to write, but they are completely broken, and there's no way you'll be able to improve them unless you're able to bring in a significant portion of the non-involved Wikipedia community, which would require a full time job on your part. I do fear that all wikipedia articles on contemporary conflicts are headed in this direction, and I think there should be an effort to reverse this trend. I have no idea how though. -Darouet (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1033 program
Thank you for the barnstar. I dont "celebrate" Thanksgiving, so that was maybe my thanks to the place I inhabit...

Maybe 1033 program can be suggested for DYK (nomination must be done 7 d after expansion), what do you think?

I ve seen, we share similar interests, like evolutionary biology, or current events. I stopped editing any Ukrainian topics or ISIS long ago, and I agree with your advice above... there is considerable strength in numbers on WP, and if you are the sane minority, it's very difficult. It's one reason why the truth can definitely be shut out for a considerable amount of time. In domestic topics it's industry-payed users from 2,4D to fracking or miltary pursuits. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - a good thanks to your home, for sure! It'd be great if the 1033 program were nominated for DYK, but I've reached my limit for self nominations without my contributing to that project (and I really intend to, but not just now).
 * Regarding Ukraine, ISIS, and politically charged issues - editing these subjects just requires so much stamina. It's useful because you learn a lot while editing them, but the atmosphere is generally poisonous. I especially dislike the manner in which some editors come to the subjects with the intention, often declared, of participating in some conflict through Wikipedia. I always maintain hope for these subjects however because of the general intelligence and goodwill of our established editors/admins, and because of wikiprojects like "countering systemic bias." Cheers! -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But you did contribute to the 1033 program, I dont understand.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh - what I simply mean is that I haven't contributed to the broader DYK project, which requires that you review other people's nominations some number of times, before being able to propose your own articles to DYK. They let you nominate a few of your own articles in the beginning, but then ask that you help them out before they'll let you nominate more. I think I'm at that limit… -Darouet (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

CGS
Hi, Darouet. You commented at the NPOV Noticeboard here, and I responded -- basically asking if I could briefly enlist your assistance with developing a few wording changes you would find satisfactory. What brings me to your Talk page, however, was the last sentence of your comment. As a recent editor of that article (I had never heard of CGS prior to December 2), I thought I'd ask you if there is any reason I should be concerned. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your note! I'd be happy to go through the article briefly this weekend, and hopefully make some concrete recommendations that might be viewed as helpful to you and Safehaven86. As to my last comment, I made it in haste and certainly wasn't trying to implicate you in a conflict of interest - looking back I see that's maybe what concerned you? I was just expressing my frustration in having seen many think tank articles written effusively in the past. -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my concern, and thank you for the clarification. Your frustration is understandable; I've likewise observed that articles on political think tanks and similar organizations are often subjected to either promotional editing or disparaging editing - or both, in "battleground" articles. Fortunately, this is a rarely-accessed article about a defunct organization, so I am hopeful that input from an uninvolved third party is all that is needed to resolve any perceived issues. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide, and there's no rush - this can be a hectic time of year for some folks. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
For the barnstar. Much appreciated. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the work that earned the barnstar: also much appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Socialist Web Site, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Walsh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loriu Plateau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horst. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel...
Following this edit I just wanted to clarify that 'Der Spiegel' means 'The Mirror' so just like one would not write the 'The Guardian' (nor the 'Le Monde'), it is better to avoid the 'Der Spiegel'. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha, Lklundin - thanks for the correction. Definitely a rookie mistake! All best, -Darouet (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War question
Do you genuinely believe Iraq War is written from an entirely neutral perspective?

Do you genuinely believe that my complaints lack any merit whatsoever?

CJK (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi CJK, I think the Iraq War is written if anything from too much of a pro-American perspective: too little emphasis on the Iraqi perspective, Iraqi casualties, and global attitudes towards the war. While I understand your complaints, I think they are coming from a perspective that views the war as justified under international law. I don't think that is the perspective of the international community. -Darouet (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you will not discuss my recent proposed changes which are very minimal and do not make any claim as to if the war was justified under any law.

CJK (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi CJK, sorry I will get back to you shortly. Thank you for posting here to get my attention. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * Thank you for accepting my mediation request. However, this should not be about behavior, as mediation is a content dispute resolution process. I've asked Bobrayner to remove his additional issue content and I ask you to do the same. Again, thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Mediation Committee Chairperson has asked that you re-accept. See their note on the request page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Loita Plains) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Loita Plains, Darouet!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"great. thanks"

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Galileo affair
I noticed the ongoing vandalism at galileo-related pages including the one you reverted. It may make sense to request protection for the page Galileo affair similar to Galileo Galilei which is already protected. Tkuvho (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to comment at here if possible. Tkuvho (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Tkuvho - that's a strange case indeed - best I'm not involved however since I don't know the context. -Darouet (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

1 RR Violation at Russian Interference
Please do a self-undo and take up your concerns on talk. SPECIFICO talk


 * This is the one and only revert I've made to the article in a very long time. Do you have diffs to show other reverts within the last 24 hours? -Darouet (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, so I suggest you have a looksee. SPECIFICO  talk  05:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked, "Do you have diffs..."? What are you referring to? -Darouet (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just another of 's vague threats that they're going to bring you to a drama board. Just in case you didn't know this already, you're expected to tell users you accuse of 1RR exactly what diffs you consider to be a violation of 1RR. Issuing vague threats like you have above is just disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a false accusation, SPECIFICO should be reported immediately for a what is now an established pattern of making threats against other users, often accompanied by defamatory attacks. In addition, saying stuff like "you have a looksee" in response to clear and serious question is trollish behavior, which is a blockable offence if it is a long-term pattern. Enough is enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this thread with, where made similar threats of AE litigation, while refusing to provide diffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle at AE. Your violation wasn't the multi-revert. It was the two reverts 22 hours apart. Anyway you did the right thing calling bs on the AE complaint. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  03:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are confused about the difference between "edit" and "revert" . SPECIFICO, you should not leave so many warnings on other editors' talk pages if you don't know what 1RR means. -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Darouet, I don't like editors gaming WP:1RR and am quite likely to formally warn editors who I think are putting forth frivolous WP:1RR violation claims (where the intent is clearly not to edit war). That being said, you should be aware of the official definition of a revert so you don't get yourself in trouble in the future. 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.' (from WP:3RR). So an "edit" moving stuff around could be considered a revert. --Neil N  talk to me 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The interpretation you're putting forth of "revert" includes literally any edit that modifies any existing text in any way. Even inserting or deleting a comma could be considered a revert, under that interpretation. With that interpretation, the ability to launch frivolous edit warring complaints would be enormous. The 1RR and 3RR rules are meant to prevent edit warring, and I don't see how treating relatively harmless modifications of existing text as "reverts" would advance that cause. There's a pretty clear difference between two editors undoing each others' edits over and over again (a classic edit war), and an editor simply modifying text by replacing a word, moving a sentence, etc.
 * Beyond that, what do you think of 's various vague threats of AE litigation and accusations of misogyny? I'm not clamoring for any sort of official sanction at this point (even though I think it would be completely warranted), but I would like for an admin to make it clear to that this sort of behavior has to stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I keep on having variations of this WP:1RR conversation. I need to dig up my past posts and write an essay :-) Basically, you're right. There is tremendous potential to launch frivolous complaints. But we don't see a lot of those as admins in general don't like gaming. But an editor cannot claim an edit is not a revert. If an editor removes "left-wing" from the lead, gets reverted, then removes "left-wing" from a "Background" section, gets reverted, then removes "left leaning" from a "Politics" section, they're going to get dinged. As for SPECIFICO's posts, I've already commented in the prior section. For this matter, if someone asks what reverts you're referring to, the proper thing to do is to provide specific diffs. --Neil N  talk to me 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

could you please clarify this edit constitutes a revert, and how, combined with my second edit, it is "gaming WP:1RR?" I am alarmed that you have seen SPECIFICO repeatedly harass me here, and are now contributing to that behavior yourself. -Darouet (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize: I believe I may have mistaken your "gaming 1RR" as a reference to my edits, instead of SPECIFICO's comments here. Nevertheless, by maintaining that my moving a section of text to a new place, when that move has not been conducted or contested previously, you are proposing an interpretation of "revert" that I have never seen previously. According to this interpretation it seems, as Thucydides411 mentions above, any edit can be retroactively and arbitrarily deemed a revert. This seems like a very complicated form of WP:WIKILAWYERING. And I don't see why you'd make the comment unless you agreed with SPECIFICO that my de novo moving of text was a revert. Do you think that is true, and SPECIFICO's post here was justified? -Darouet (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Thucydides411. I just wanted to clarify an edit can be seen as a revert. --Neil N  talk to me 05:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the second time that SPECIFICO has accused me of violating DS/1RR on my talk page, without providing diffs, even after I asked for them. They've also called me "shameful" twice, accused me of acting in a misogynist manner towards them twice... All I can say is that none of this would fly in a professional context. I love wikipedia. I am proud of what I and everybody else accomplishes. But I am sad that I've had to put up with this recently: it's unprecedented in my experiences here. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a few options. 1) Ask them not to post here any more 2) Ask them to only post if they provide diffs. 3) Bring an AE case based on behavior. 4) Ask for a one-way or two-way interaction ban. I would probably go with #2 to start. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with option #3 is that given the strong apparent political bias in decision-making at AE, I wouldn't be surprised to see a case against SPECIFICO boomerang against the accuser. I recently saw a user of the "wrong" political persuasion get banned from commenting at AE merely for suggesting a boomerang (asking for a boomerang amounts to "aspersions," apparently), while other users seem to be able to just utter the word "boomerang" and turn the tables instantly.
 * In my own case, I got sanctioned for a week on grounds nobody could quite explain afterwards. Multiple admins basically admitted that the decision was wrong (the rule at issue was too confusing, the sanction was arbitrarily applied, and I had edited in good faith), but nobody wanted to lift the sanction. I think that the reason I was sanctioned was political, and that the reason my sanction wasn't lifted after it had become a farce was also political. In my opinion, this sort of obvious slant at AE has given free reign to some of the most disruptive editors, like SPECIFICO. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
 * 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.

There is clearly no consensus to reinsert this disputed content. Per DS you may be blocked without warning. Please undo yourself. SPECIFICO talk  03:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , the last time Goodin was discussed in any detail there was strong support for inclusion of the material, including among editors generally opposed to skepticism in the article (Archive 3). Your rationale for reverting Thucydides411  was incorrect, as  pointed out when they reverted you.


 * There is a larger issue: it's inappropriate to template long-time editors, and to accuse them of DS violations without doing your homework and providing diffs. I have already asked you not to post accusations on my talk page without providing evidence in the form of diffs (which would in this case include a demonstration of what you think consensus is, and why). You don't have a good track record here: you've routinely peppered my talk page with warnings and provided no evidence to back them up . Here, you've called me "shameful" and baselessly accused me of misogyny, not bothering to provide evidence or apologize.


 * WP:HARASSMENT states, "A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page... and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space." The article also states that "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." This behavior may make "the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing."


 * I don't bring up "harassment" lightly but I think it's clear from the diffs that all of the above has certainly happened here. -Darouet (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

RSN CIA NYT
You misrepresented in your comment at RSN. That's not appropriate behavior on WP. Please take care not to misrepresent other editors or raise straw man arguments, which are never constructive. SPECIFICO talk  17:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not disparage other editors
or accuse them of POV-mongering when they disagree with you, e.g.. SPECIFICO talk  01:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You've been told repeatedly to stop your harassment of . Enough is enough already. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal Comments
Don't make personal remarks on the article talk pages. If you have something worthwhile to say, it can be said in terms of article content and editorial policy. SPECIFICO talk  13:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are incorrectly applying the term "fake news" to articles with which you disagree. Perhaps you don't believe it's fair for me to point out that you do this and Trump does as well, but the similarity is remarkable and humorous, given the context. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concerns about article content and editing do not entitle you to make personal remarks on the talk page or in your edit summaries. "Humorous" is not an excuse, and your reply seems to show you don't understand that basic tenet of WP. SPECIFICO  talk  19:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, have you apologized to Darouet yet for calling them a misogynist? Just wondering. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Nation report on the VIPS memo is not "fake news." I regret that I chose my words somewhat less carefully than usual in my earlier post refuting VIPS and Lawrence, making their argument sound slightly weaker than it actually is. To clarify things, here is a fuller quote from one of the sources I used to debunk the "inside job" theory: The initial files released by the persona Guccifer 2.0 on June 15, 2016 included — in addition to graffiti paying tribute to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of Russia’s secret police — metadata deliberately set to Cyrillic (the metadata had previously been interpreted, implausibly even at the time, to be a mistake).

And a file later released on September 13, 2016 purportedly from Guccifer 2.0 but released via a magnet site and never linked on his WordPress site, was probably copied, locally, to a Linux drive somewhere in the Eastern time zone on July 5, 2016; the files were then copied to a Windows file on September 1, 2016.

Those are the fairly uncontroversial findings from two separate research efforts that have recently renewed debate over whether the conclusion of the intelligence community, that Russia hacked the DNC, is valid.

And here is a fuller quote from The Nation's independent review by The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas: The work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate. There are no significant errors in the specific findings, relating to the analysis of time stamps and calculations related to digital-transfer speeds (also known as "throughput") between storage drives or over a network connection. The Forensicator has worked carefully with the limited set of data available, providing the means necessary for anyone to reproduce the work and analysis.

There is nothing to indicate that the metadata was fabricated or altered in any way. In addition, while Freitas outlines several scenarios that would have allowed a hacker to achieve the throughput suggested by the metadata, it remains the case that a local download is the far more likely explanation. So what's the problem? Very simply, it is not that this evidence is "fake," but rather that it does not remotely justify sweeping conclusions along the lines of "the DNC was never hacked" or "Guccifer 2.0 was a DNC front all along." It is much easier to believe that Guccifer 2.0's handlers included the homage to Dzerzhinsky and the Cyrillic script because they wanted to brag, as opposed to the alternative hypothesis that the DNC itself leaked Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee documents that benefited congressional Republicans in order to sustain a fictitious narrative about Russian meddling. And as VIPS members Thomas A. Drake, Scott Ritter, Lisa Ling, Cian Westmoreland, Philip Giraldi and Jesselyn Radack explained in their dissent: It is important to note that it’s equally plausible that the cited July 5, 2016, event was carried out on a server separate from the DNC or elsewhere, and with data previously copied, transferred, or even exfiltrated from the DNC. However, independent of transfer/copy speeds, if the data was not on the DNC server on July 5, 2016, then none of this VIPS analysis matters (including the categorically stated fact that the local copy was acquired by an insider) and simply undermines the credibility of any and all analysis in the VIPS memo when joined with this flawed predicate.

As a final point, recall that Guccifer 2.0 actually released relatively few DNC emails directly, but began posting Podesta emails four months prior to WikiLeaks. It is the Podesta emails that clarify the Guccifer 2.0-Russia-WikiLeaks connection, because "Russia's role in hacking Podesta has always been easier to show than its role in hacking the DNC." To be perfectly candid, that is also why skeptics of Russian interference tend to focus entirely on the DNC hack/leak and ignore (rather than rebut) all of the other accusations and evidence against Russia.

Still, doubting the U.S. government is not a crime of any sort, not even a "thoughtcrime," and we should all be willing to consider alternative points of view before dismissing them out of hand with a derogatory label such as "fake news."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Your smears at AN
You have no business making false and irrelevant aspersions about me on an unrelated AN thread. If you have something to say that addresses or that you believe refutes any comment I've made there, be my guest. But I will not tolerate any further personal smears from you and I am warning you (without a template, cause you're a seasoned editor) to remove and retract all such mentions of me on that thread. SPECIFICO talk  02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, you now post 90% of the comments on my talk page. We don't even know each other. You must have something better to do with your time. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * When, exactly, were you planning on apologizing to Darouet for calling them a misogynist? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request
I'm going to politely ask you to redact your disgusting talk page disparagement of me here. SPECIFICO talk  01:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Aspersions
You refer on ANI to me "edit warring". I don't do that kind of thing.

Please provide diffs. Aspersions without evidence are not permitted.

Please read the information page linked above. Diffs please. Otherwise you might consider redacting what I'll assume was an error.

SPECIFICO talk  02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Aspersions, misrepresentation, etc
You are repeatedly misrepresenting the now-deprecated sanction that NeilN put on after an Admin blocked Thuc's at my request. I forget how many sanctions ago that was for Thuc, but at any rate you basically have two choices for yourself: You can either read that sanction and understand what it was about -- to ensure that any future reference you make is accurate and appropriate -- or you can just stop bringing it up every time you have no policy- or reference-based arguments for your preferred article edits or whatever else is bothering you. You need to stop. It's harassment. If you can't stop voluntarily, then in the future I will pursue other remedies. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have asked countless times to stop posting on my talk page, and to stop harassing me as a mechanism for trying to drive me from articles where we disagree on content issues. Now that I have asked them to stop threatening other editors (e.g. Thucydides411) and instead focus on article content and improvement, they are coming here to again in a blatant effort to intimidate me. SPECIFICO's block record is impressive and it is wholly related to this relentless WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is a volunteer encyclopedia, it's not supposed to be a war zone. Where can I go to request that 1) SPECIFICO never post on my talk page, and 2) stops threatening me and other editors with sanctions as a way of "winning" content disputes? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Darouet, this business of bringing up blocks from 7 years back in a situation you know nothing about -- and bringing it up over and over and over, as if it bolsters whatever's bothering you at the moment -- is really not helpful. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are doing exactly what described in their block summary 7 years ago, for the whole year-plus that we've interacted here — and in a context where you are referencing other editors' sanctions to bully them — yes, I will bring it up. It's not "whatever's bothering me at the moment," it's you making more than half of the posts present on my talk page, most of these consisting of threats, without diffs to support them, and some including rank personal insults and civility violations . -Darouet (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , if an editor has asked you to stop posting on their talk page, then the best course of action is to stop. Respond briefly on the article talk page with your rebuttal or if a more involved discussion about behavior is needed then start that discussion on your talk page and ping them. Alternatively, post to an uninvolved admin's talk page and ask them to look at the situation, providing diffs. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)