User talk:Mathguyjohn

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 23:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I literally linked to https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-47337239 this source. It's been almost a week and the page still includes defamatory allegations that the link between Trump and Russia has any merit. It's false. Please read my contributions more carefully in the future and retract this nonsense. If you don't like my writing style then fix it yourself. The article is false. Mathguyjohn (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Where in the BBC article does it say
 * "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is called the "Russian collusion narrative"?
 * The "Russian collusion narrative" is false"?
 * - MrX 🖋 23:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally the headline, dude. "No evidence of collusion." If Wikipedia is calling spygate (for which there is ample evidence even though some elements have been exaggerated) false, then the conspiracy theories regarding links between the Trump campaign and Russia are certainly false - a two year investigation has just disproven them. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those are not the same things. See Argument from ignorance. This is why you have to stick to what the source says, and not what you want it to say. Have your read WP:OR and WP:V yet as I suggested?- MrX 🖋 01:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're seriously going with the "just because there's no evidence whatsoever doesn't mean it's untrue"? That doesn't fly. You're not allowed to accuse someone of something with no evidence. The article says "no evidence". I don't care what your bullshit guidelines say, what the article says is false and defamatory. It needs to be corrected. You're not allowed to continue to assert allegations that have been disproven just because at one time there was a suggestion that they might be true. You, CNN and MSNBC were wrong. Buzzfeed News was wrong. You trusted the wrong people and got burned. Mueller isn't some anonymous source or an expert familiar with the matter. He's the lead investigator. End of story. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't take Mueller's word for it, because all we have is a brief summary written by a partisan appointed official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But you can take a bunch of random assholes' word for it instead? Maybe you'd like Wikipedia's new tagline to be "The online encyclopedia that anyone can post unsubstantiated garbage to." If the article isn't substantially rewritten after the full report exonerates Trump, I'm failing any student who uses Wiki as a source. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should fail any student who uses Wikipedia as a source, just like you should fail any student who uses Britannica. Tertiary sources are highly deprecated in the academic world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I mean I'm failing any student who claims they found their source through Wikipedia. You are a joke. Mathguyjohn (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)