User talk:Mr Ernie/Archive 2

British versus American spelling.
It looks like you're changing spelling from British style to American style. We generally don't do that here. The basic rules are: If you jump into an article and change the spelling from one version to the other, you're probably going to annoy somebody. Usually it's best to just leave it the way it is. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article is about a Commonwealth (English, Australian, Canadian, etc) subject, then British spelling is used.
 * If the article is about an American subject, then American spelling should be used.
 * If the article is about anything else (say, Japan or South America, then the spelling is decided by whoever started the article.


 * No problem! I changed this one back.  The topic was English soccer, and they spell the word 'organised' instead of 'organized'.  I'm not sure what the breakdown is, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are as many Wikipedians from Commonwealth countries as there are from the States.  We have this little agreement...they won't use British spelling in an article about New York; we won't use American spelling in an article about London. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Gerda Arendt for these kind words! Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome, - I hope you aware that the award comes from the cabal of the outcasts ;) - I was trained by arbcom to make only two comments in a given discusion, - you spoke for me after I exceeded that limit, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree completely. Thank you Mr Ernie, for all you've done for the project. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1738 of Precious, a prize of QAI! I like your advice to Sagecandor! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow I can't believe that was already a year ago! Thank you for checking back in! I've also just noticed my account birthday is October 3...12 years ago I registered an account. Again, hard to believe how fast the years pass.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ... and now two years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is so kind thank you for remembering. I’m having a glass of wine near the Duomo in Milan tonight, and being thankful for life and all it’s wonderful accompaniments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Hordern
Hordern was an interesting one to do. His war service was particularly interesting and if I were convinced enough that it would have got through FAC, I'd have expanded the war stuff more, as there was so much information on it. George VI knew of him because of his work on Illustrious; Hordern was particularly proud of his war service, perhaps more so than his acting career, according to his who I spoke to not so long ago. As for what's next? Well this and this are up and coming, although RL is somewhat getting in the way at the moment. Hope all is good with you.  Cassianto Talk  06:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the photopgraphs in the Matcham article are stunning. I've never been to the UK, but now I really fancy a walkthrough of the Blackpool Tower to see that ballroom. I'm sure the process of developing the Hordern article was very enjoyable to you, given that you were able to speak to his grandson. That must have been quite an engaging conversation! Thanks for stopping by, good to hear from you, and Happy New Year! Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I very much appreciate this . However, I may not be able to accept it because I am, per above, a "purposeful and blatant harasser." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
Posting this for informational purposes only, since you have recently edited Sarah Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Luitpoldpark
Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC) thank you for sharing! Very cool! Mr Ernie (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions violation
Hi Ernie. I hope you are well and safely sheltered in a location that allows you to receive your favorite Fox News. 😉 After your two rapidfire reverts on Joe Biden talk today I had a look at the history of the article page and noticed that you violated the 1RR page sanction with these two reverts: 1 2. I guess things were changing so quickly there that nobody bothered to enforce it. Anyway, please exercise a bit more restraint at the Biden article. It's chaotic, and nothing much is going to be settled in the short term, anyway. Regards.  SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I wasn’t aware those sanctions were in effect on the talk page. Nevertheless we should afford the new IP editor the dignity not to have the SPA tag attached. Unfortunately we don’t get Fox News where we live, which is why I can only watch it when I’m traveling. My spouse doesn’t tolerate it anyways, for the record. I’m only able to subsist on what clips generous you tubers provide, in order to get my Tucker Carlson takes. Thankfully he at least has been rightfully directing attention to China’s dreadful behavior during this ordeal. What are their real numbers, do you think? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that China might not be releasing accurate information? PackMecEng (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe I saw a story today stating that was the assessment from the trusted US intelligence community. Oh yes, here it is - link. A chinese colleague of mine continues to insist the US created the virus to attack China. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have heard similar stories from family in Korea. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows the pandemic started when the kids escaped the child labor camps on Mars and brought the Martian virus to Earth. Don’t you people read The Truth news? O3000 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I must of missed it, my hat probably blocked the transmission. PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please refer to me as Mr Ernie. Our beloved rescue dog certainly earned that honorable title thanks to the years of selfless love he gave us before passing. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever. But the suggestion that it's impolite to an SPA to tag it as such is kind of, um, ludicrous. Read up on why the tag exists.  is one of the most courteous of editors and is well-versed in policy and guidlines.  As well as in enforcement. Be well.  SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, don’t we? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the two links above are your violation on the article page, where there's no doubt you would have been blocked if anyone had reported it.  SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I kind of doubt it. Maybe asked to self-revert but given that there was just the one edit in between and it was unrelated to the reverts it is unlikely. PackMecEng (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , your passive aggressive message has been understood, I feel the horse has well and truly been flogged to death on this one, I assure you (although I fail to see what gives you the right to administer the bollocking). Anyway, no harm done, no one is dead, shall we move on?  Cassianto Talk  22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Do the issues lie with perspective or reading comprehension
The WSJ reported (quite clearly to me but then my left eye has been acting up a bit) that the Mueller report all but dismissed many key claims of the dossier compiled by private investigator Christopher Steele. I flooded my left eye with Visine and read that article again to make sure it read the same. It did. A bit further research and I found an NBC report which stated: The Justice Department has concluded that two of the four court orders allowing the FBI to conduct secret national security surveillance on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were not valid... and they added something about "material misstatements" when the FBI obtained them. The article further states that Boasberg (a prominent judge on the FISC) emphasized how the FBI failed in its handling of the case and that it continues to have serious policy and political repercussions. (Pause for more Visine and to pour a half-jar of green olives w/pimento into a snack bowl but without the Vodka). I get that 2 out of 4 were not valid...but what about the other two? Where are the trusty media reports? Well...so far...my research turned up the following (drum roll, please)...in a Fox News report: ...the DOJ "apparently does not take a position on the validity" on the first two Page FISA applications. *sigh* Neither the Visine nor the green olives helped clarify that statement. My conclusion - it's a crossfire hurricane that leaves one crosseyed, and the hot air hurricane force winds have left us with an exorbitant amount of debris 💩 to sift through. The IG report didn't/couldn't dig deeper. So what are we left with? [Pause while I add some vodka to the green olives] We are left with articles like what WaPo published a few days ago that apparently is taking a backseat to the Corona virus reports. I hope you will forgive me for not discussing this on an article TP, but as I alluded to...there is a lot of debris (detritus when using environmental language) to sift through so it's not quite ready for mainspace. I will add that the National Review article (whoever they are, don't have time to look) also reported it but because of my eye issue, have not been able to research further - besides, what energy I have left is being devoted to the promotion of a GA (which is beside the point but you can't hat it now because it's built-in to this discussion). And what exactly spurred the disrailing (when I have so many other better things to do?) - this, that's what. I'm all ears, Mr Ernie (the eyes aren't working as well as the ears so it's okay to SHOUT). Atsme Talk 📧 21:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden
Hey, thank you for helping me on my talk page. I had to give in and conduct a major "self-revert" due to the threats by MrX and SPECIFICO. Any advice on how I could get this duplicate content trimmed and the Larry King Live content restored? I've started a talk page discussion for the latter. Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry I just don't know how to deal with that, outside of an uninvolved administrator taking a close look at their behavior as well.
 * My main problem is that the discretionary sanctions in place really support the tactics of bold reversions, and really hamper the free flow developments of new-ish articles like that one. A few editors can effectively use their 1 revert each day on key insertions of content, and freeze it out of the article by claiming no consensus during the required talk page discussions.
 * I lost a lot of good faith during the Kavanaugh saga when a now administrator redacted my calling the Swetnick allegation "wild" on a talk page (and look where her attorney is now). We have many editors now openly (and falsely) calling Reade's accusation not credible, debunked, or what have you, but nobody is bothering to try and redact those comments.
 * I have a bit of hope that maybe some uninvolved admins are watching that page and will begin addressing the 1RR and stalling tactics on everyone, and not just selectively. My simple piece of advice would be to not let what those guys say bother you, because in the past editors losing their cool when responding to perceived threats have done things that got them sanctioned before they had a time to cool off. Otherwise, pay close attention to when you're removing content. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C was just asked to on Muboshgu's talk page but didn't seem interested. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice4What. One step you can take right away is not to keep refering to "threats" when there were no threats. Also, try not to think of "your" content contributions. We volunteer them and they belong to mankind, plus animals who can type.  SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of hope that maybe some uninvolved admins are watching that page and will begin addressing the 1RR and stalling tactics on everyone, and not just selectively. My simple piece of advice would be to not let what those guys say bother you, because in the past editors losing their cool when responding to perceived threats have done things that got them sanctioned before they had a time to cool off. Otherwise, pay close attention to when you're removing content. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C was just asked to on Muboshgu's talk page but didn't seem interested. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice4What. One step you can take right away is not to keep refering to "threats" when there were no threats. Also, try not to think of "your" content contributions. We volunteer them and they belong to mankind, plus animals who can type.  SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words in support of my appeal, which just closed and was successful. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation at Donald Trump
These two edits, the first falsely claiming an edit against consensus and the second incorrectly tagged as reverting vandalism, violate the 1RR page restriction. As pointed out by numerous editors, including, and others, consensus has changed. Pinging who I believe was the one to place the current page restriction. Ernie, please be more mindful in the future, and please review the definition of Vandalism that we use on Wikipedia.  SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong on both counts. Please do not come here and threaten me while pinging admins. I do not enjoy engaging with you like this. Take it to a noticeboard in the future please. As you can see above, falsely accusing me of DS violations is a habit that you ought to stop. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it the second reverted edit was vandalism, it was clearly a BLP violation which also makes it exempt from 1RR. ~Awilley (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As you have stated in the past,, BLP exemption for a revert must be stated in the edit summary. But this text, although most likely UNDUE for the lead, does reflect well sourced article text. And he didn't cite BLP here either.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, UNDUE weight like that in the first sentence is a BLP violation. We can quibble about whether a clear BLP violation in a high profile article crosses the fuzzy line into Vandalism, but the fact remains that Mr Ernie did the right thing in reverting it. ~Awilley (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The second reverted edit was clearly vandalism AND a BLP violation. Even if there is information in the article text about conspiracy theories, that does not justify making it part of the lead sentence. I would have reverted it too. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm very sorry I didn't label the revert of obvious BLP / vandalism correctly enough for you. But next time please use your judgment before coming here and falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. Would you please retract or strike your text above? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have reverted it too, but it is neither vandalism nor a BLP violation. It's simply UNDUE in the lead. Our policy concerning vandalism is strict, direct, and detailed. Ernie, no matter how many times you call "fake news" on my concern, that will not make it so. If it's important to you to deny or rebut my concern, you would need to be more specific. Your denial is not of itself dispositive. I think the issues are clear to anyone who reads this thread and accordingly we can move on. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please strike the accusation that I violated the page restriction, which has been demonstrated to you to be false. People could read back through the history and get the mistaken impression I did something wrong. Please also strike the "please be more mindful" as I did not do anything wrong. I haven't found our recent interactions to be productive, which have largely been initiated by you. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ernie, I suggested we move on since there's little point in further discussion without reference to policy or context. However the relevant principles are set forth in our page on edit warring here, so anyone who comes across this thread can decide for themselves which end is up. I didn't ask for you to be sanctioned, and I didn't even ask you to self-revert. I merely pointed you to our documentation on Vandalism, to which I've now added the link to 1RR exemptions. I can't strike through a documented statement of fact. But others are free to reject what I've said here, so I think you are protected. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO, Our BLP policy is also strict, direct, and detailed. See for instance the WP:BLPSTYLE section which requires that BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Labeling Trump a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence clearly violates the parts that I bolded above. It also violates bits of the next section on "Balance" (material should be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone...Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, etc.) I'm a bit incredulous that this is even in question.
 * Mr Ernie, I don't think any striking is necessary. No rational person who actually reads this thread is going to come away with the impression that you are in the wrong. Here: I'll make it easier for anybody skimming the thread. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] No violation. ~Awilley (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Awilley, what's at issue is not the validity of the edit. But as you will recall, you have previously cited the bit from our policy that says the BLP violation must be cited in the contemporaneous edit summary. Consistency is a key part of credible and effective enforcement. I do appreciate your coming here to comment. I stated above that the conspiracy theorist statement is UNDUE, which is the essence of BALANCE and NPOV, so I don't think there is any disagreement about that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to rvt the same edit when Ernie did. I was disturbed by the edit comment that it was vandalism as I thought that inappropriate, and a label I use with great caution, but tire of these arguments. I would not continue with this as there are far more egregious CIV vios than a vandalism accusation-- which don't seem to matter without massive evidence. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you are disturbed when bad edits are removed, and will continue to remove them when I see them. I checked the user's talk page before reverting, and found many warnings about inserting vandalism and bad edits. Indeed, there was a block in March. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)Awilley, what's at issue is not the validity of the edit. But as you will recall, you have previously cited the bit from our policy that says the BLP violation must be cited in the contemporaneous edit summary. In the case of this most public of public figures, calling that "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" would be a highly dubious. Consistency is a key part of credible and effective enforcement. I do appreciate your coming here to comment. As I told Ernie, I wasn't asking for sanctions or anything of the sort because the second revert, which violated the sanction, would quickly have done by some other editor if not Ernie. I stated above that the conspiracy theorist statement is UNDUE, which is the essence of BALANCE and NPOV, so I don't think there is any disagreement about that. But as you may be aware, this editor has expressed some views on NPOV recently  and it's ironic that I and not Ernie should have been the one to cite the NPOV violation. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go again persisting in your falsehood that I violated any sanction. You've been repeatedly told you are not correct in your interpretation of the policy. Please find something more productive to do than dig holes on my talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

On touchdown
Hi, Mr Ernie! Ironically upon arrival, I landed on this discussion. You were right which further validates EEng's essay, WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES. I get the sense that lockdown fever may be causing some of our sweetest, most docile editors and esteemed colleagues to run amok. It makes me sad. How are you holding up? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I still think the Sand Infobox was a vastly under-appreciated joke. All things considered we are doing fine. We moved to a European country in 2019 to experience a perspective widening exposure to new culture, but I've been locked in my house since March and just about all of the important cultural events have been canceled. But at least here they deliver beer right to my doorstep. The icing on the cake is that I got COVID here too, but I'll spare you those details! I consider to be a dear Wiki-friend - but not because we necessarily agree on content or civility. In fact, we really got into it a couple times a few years ago. I read some of their wonderful articles and reached out off-wiki, where they graciously accepted an apology from me with no real reason to do so other than good faith and genuineness. I wonder how many wiki conflicts could be handled by a drink of one's choosing and some direct conversation? Wonder if there'd be a way to implement a Wikipub, like the Teahouse, where good faith disagreements can be handled directly without running to a favored admin to get the result you want? And if you're buying, I prefer a Helles. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A Wikipub sounds wonderful, and what a coincidence about your interaction with Cassianto which is somewhat similar to mine! I certainly agree with you about his writing ability, and I suppose we all have our little quirks. I am certainly supportive of having Wiki-friends, and a believer in the more the merrier! A good example that comes to mind - about 9 mos. ago, I wrote a poem for, knowing his affection for Harvard. If you get some extra time, read the discussion that followed; it's short but entertaining. I particularly liked his interpretation about his UTP being a veritable Algonquin Round Table...it's as close as I've been to a Wikipub. Now all we need is beer delivery to our doorstep which is certainly a welcoming feature...but the COVID, not so much. I hope it didn't leave any unwelcome remnants with you, Mr Ernie. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Stirring the pot
I would kindly ask that you stop stirring whatever metaphorical pot you seem intent on brewing. You were told by multiple crats that the reasoning behind one's resignation of the sysop bit is irrelevant at the time of the request, yet you insist on continuing to attempt to provide "evidence". I have fully closed the BN thread; please do not continue commenting there. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Primefac I will comment whenever and wherever I think appropriate, but thanks for your message. Good luck on Arbcom. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, edit summaries like “this ends now” are unbecoming of crats. Please try to exercise good faith. It is important to add context to ongoing discussions, especially where tool use and prior Arbcom requests are concerned. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Edward McClaren
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - COVID
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am aware. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Kudos

 * Mr. Ernie, I don't know you or anything about you, but I have to say, this line is probably the best I've ever read on Wikipedia! The Kingfisher (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I thought it was a good one too. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for your brilliant burst of repartee at the bottom of this thread, I hereby award you the Irony Cross 1st Class, with Oak Leaves and Teensy-Weensy Embedded Semiprecious Stones. Pay only $16.99 postage and handling. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @EEng thank you! I will treasure it greatly. If I was clever enough to drop another deft bon mot then I would, but I'm not, so I won't, but please just imagine I have done so and everyone can respond with their laughs accordingly. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory.
This whole page needs to be redone. It is now a proven fact that Joe Biden not only knew what his son was doing, but the FBI has confirmed in congressional hearings that the lap top is actually Hunter Biden's. Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for multiple things including illegally acquiring a firearm. Next the NY post article has been validated and every point in the article has been verified by the FBI and other independent sources the Laptop is Hunter Biden's. There are now pictures showing Joe Biden meeting with Hunter Biden's former business associates including three individuals with warrants issued in Ukraine, Austria, and Switzerland.

The whole post is pure propaganda it is not a conspiracy theory, it is now a proven fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.16.125 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On the nail...
Absolutely, and this comment by is one of the strongest I've ever known them make. None of it helped however when a few months later that nasty little duplicitous and disingenuous sockmaster convinced Arbcom to have me desysoped after I exposed him. Bullying and taunting people is his sick MO, and sadly all the blocks and bans in the world won't work - he'll be back, doing it again to his next victim. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Kudpung I was not familiar with that user during your unpleasant and distasteful Arb case, but after the last flare up I spent some time (your proverbial 2 hours) reading the background and what I found was shocking. It is disheartening to read the unblock request and see some trusted figures advocate for an unblock, fully knowing the history. I am sorry that it ended up affecting you in the way that it did. That user once visited my talk page after I commented at an ANI involving them to make some bizarre comments that made me uncomfortable. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that has also been one of his victims. In fact the list is probably a lot longer but it's not worth the time and effort to trawl through all his edits under his many accounts to find out, certainly since I'm retired for all intents and purposes. The people who tilted that discussion to 'unblock' - some of them highly respected users - have no clue how much damage was done by it later, and the destruction of the Wiki careers of some highly industrious and dedicated users it caused. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Emergency communications
I'm uncomfortable responding to your email. That aside, I was probably asleeep when you sent it.

Please review WP:EMERGENCY. There are direct steps listed here to take if you believe that there is a real emergency. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me! 07:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @SQL I was following that procedure - I had already alerted the Foundation per step 2 listed there, and was following step 3 when I sent you the email. I had seen you were active in the last hour. I received a response from the T&S team. I'm uncomfortable with the situation too but I'm reasonably confident the crisis has passed. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Other's comments
It's almost never advisable to edit other's talk page comments. The exceptions are few; broken links etc. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 17:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I edited my own comment which quoted another user incorrectly. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ooops, I confused the signatures. Shall I trout myself or will you do the honours. what a doofus. Sorry! <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 18:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! I welcome any and all feedback, criticism, and input. Except if I disagree with it ;) Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification
I'm coming here because Scotty has archived the thread on his talk page. I'm sorry that you were offended by my comment. It was not an aspersion in any sense. Maybe you didn't notice the scare quotes, but they, in that context, were used to draw attention to a literal impossibility, i.e. I was drawing attention to the fact that you literally could not have been "sneaking" anything in as you did not know he was about to protect the article. Scotty and I realized that the timing was just weird, not that you tried to do anything wrong. Of course not. Only someone who did not understand the timing and context would take my comment seriously, and just in case such a person came along and read it, I used scare quotes to ensure no misunderstanding occurred, and yet you did misunderstand. I'll have to be even more careful. Scotty understood my meaning and that device and construction in my comment. Unfortunately, written communication doesn't have facial expressions, tone of voice and other cues to mark subtleties, humor, etc. I thought the scare quotes would be enough, but obviously I was wrong. I was joking and meant no offense. Sorry about that. -- Valjean (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of incident in which you ha ve been involved
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 04:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Caution about pushing fringe theories
Mr Ernie, please don't advocate for the "Trump is the victim of a hoax" idea in any way, shape, or form, whether you tie it to the dossier or other aspects of Trump/Russia relations. The dossier is not a "hoax", and Trump is not the victim of a hoax or witch hunt. The suspicions and investigations of Trump and his campaign are all inspired by his own dubious activities.

You wrote: "The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier." The "hoax" aspect of that comment of yours was improper at Wikipedia and false everywhere.

Here at Wikipedia, advocacy of fringe theories is forbidden activity. It's tendentious and unwikipedian. Keep that in mind. This response to soibangla, which you edit warred over, is a case in point:

Let's unpack all the meaning packed in that fateful quote, because you are indeed a reader "who thinks Wikipedia is biased".


 * "Readers who think Wikipedia is biased" are those who do not agree with RS.
 * You even recognize that to do what you want would be to "go against Wikipedia policies".
 * You then advise to not "Argue with the editors on the talk page" and instead "go with the latter" ( "just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these [unreliable] article subjects") as if the latter are legitimate options. They are not.

That was horribly unwikipedian thinking. Why deliberately go with unreliable sources?

Why not agree with RS so there would be no need to argue with other editors? Instead, you violate your own advice all the time and argue with mainstream editors who get their views from the RS you don't like,


 * You then admit that if you follow your own preference, you'd "eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it."

So you admit that your preferences are blockable offenses.

It appears that "what interests [you] personally" is what you read on unreliable sources. That's the only way I can interpret what you wrote when compared with your frequent pushing of views found in unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. (At least you're consistent and follow your own beliefs.)

Instead of "ignoring" our articles, you should read them and their sources to learn what is factual. Let your mind be guided by evidence, not by "what interests [you] personally".

After a long edit war with several other editors over that content, you restored it with an alteration:

I guess you realized what part wasn't wise to utter out loud here, but you had already expressed your real disdain for our articles, for RS, and how you favor using unreliable sources. That cat is out of the bag, and we all know it. Please(!!) alter your beliefs, and, even if you don't, don't allow them to affect your discussions and editing, because it's quite evident when you are allowing that to happen. You can still do good work here if you're careful and avoid the political articles.

IIRC, you have been warned several times by several admins that an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban hangs over your head if you continue to do as you are doing now. Some of your comments (like the ones above) violate our Advocacy and Fringe policies, so, if you want to avoid a topic ban or stay here at all, please follow my advice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Before I spend any time trying to refute all these aspersions and misconstruals, can you answer this - do you accept that Michael Cohen was never in Prague, contradicting what the Steele Dossier said? And since you are referring to warnings by admins to me (several of them, even), it would be helpful to link to them. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I accept that we don't have conclusive evidence that Cohen and three friends were in Prague, and we know that he continues to deny it. That makes it an unproven claim. There is evidence that points to him being there, but no alibi to prove he wasn't there, so we lack a bunch of evidence. Plenty of room for decisions based on logical fallacies!
 * For: RS say that (1) He lied about it more than once by providing false alibis; (2) His phoned pinged in the area; (3) one intelligence source in London put him Prague; (4) an Eastern European intelligence agency had intercepted communications between Russians, one of whom mentioned that Cohen was in Prague; (5) two sources, reported that investigators working for Mueller "have traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany, apparently during August or early September of 2016". I could go on, but why not just read the whole section? Steele dossier.
 * Against. It's hard to prove a negative, and he has no strong alibi that he was elsewhere as we don't know the exact day and hour he was alleged to be in Prague. That makes it hard to deal with.
 * Mueller apparently didn't examine the matter carefully and "simply dismisses the incident in Cohen's own words". The Horowitz Report stated that the FBI "concluded that these allegations against Cohen" in the dossier "were not true".
 * So there are a number of attributed RS which say the allegation is "not true" or "is false". We document this from every angle and do not present it as either true or false. We let the RS speak, and when RS disagree, we are not supposed to take sides, but present both sides.
 * So we're left with the fact that no conclusive evidence was found by anyone either way. So this falls under the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence category. Those who claim that no conclusive evidence found means he absolutely wasn't there are making this logical fallacy, and some RS make that error. I personally wouldn't be surprised at anything. That he lied makes me wonder. Even if this allegation is totally false, that has no bearing on other allegations. We know, as asserted by Steele himself, that the dossier is likely not all true (70-90% true).
 * Maybe this is one of those things that is not true. The same applies to the pee tape, although there is more evidence for it, especially because Trump lied several times about it. Why would an innocent man do that?
 * As for diffs about what I wrote above, I'll save them for any future situation where they are needed. Right now, try to focus on the issue I raised above and do better. I provided the diffs that are necessary for that. -- Valjean (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't accept that Steele was simply wrong about Cohen, and that the pee tape was likely invented by Clinton lackey Dolan (who also got paid by Russia), there's no use for us to discuss anything. We just aren't going to agree. The Steele Dossier article reads like someone put it in a time capsule from 2017 and we opened it some time down the road. It barely uses any of the recent RS which overwhelmingly disparage it, Steele, and his sources. I've tried to present RS at that article that show how our current article gets things wrong, but you seem hesitant to allow major changes and rewrites where needed.
 * You're even writing a user essay that says bold improvements aren't helpful at articles like Steele Dossier, which I also disagree with. I'll make a change, you revert it, and we don't reach consensus in the talk page because it's usually just us discussing it. For crying out loud it took far too many words before we were able to remove someone else accounting for the opinion of anonymous Russian prostitutes, and I'm certain you'd like to see that text back in the article. We've seen recently a number of editors support the type of changes I support, and these types of changes will be inevitable because that's what RS are now reporting. You're telling me to "do better," but between the two of us I think you're more likely to be topic banned from that article than me, especially when more and more rewrites inevitably occur.
 * As to the "fateful quote" you refer, it was intended to be taken with some humor, but obviously that didn't go through. Regarding the edit war, I feel honored to have had the chance to edit war with the likes of Jorm and Philip Cross (both of those editors are currently blocked). Have you ever taken a look at my block log? I've seen yours! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that we'll have to agree to disagree. We inhabit different information bubbles and use very different sources. -- Valjean (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t use different sources. I use WaPo, CNN, NYT, The Nation, Intelligencer, etc. You are not accepting what they are saying in the last months. I would ask you to show me using improper sources about the Steele Dossier. I think I used NYPost once in the talk page a few years ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean Here is an article directly refuting a lot of what some Wiki articles say. Is Tablet a RS? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've seen Tablet (magazine) used here, and I'm not sure if it would be considered a RS. It would depend on the topic area. It isn't listed at WP:RSP, so that matter probably hasn't been broached there. In our article about Tablet, Lee Smith (journalist) is featured in the "Notable stories" section, so that tells you about his areas of interest.
 * It also tells you that Tablet isn't careful about who they allow to write for them because they're giving place for a right-wing conspiracy theorist like him. Like Carter Page, he's an apologist for Russia (a Russophile). He's obviously a big fan of TFG, and pushes the "Russiagate" conspiracy theory, which is essentially covered in our article about the Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (a conspiracy theory that downplays/denies Russian interference and covers-up for TFG's misdeeds). I haven't checked him out for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also pushes TFG's Big Lie about the 2020 election.
 * In short, he might make some good points, but I'd be very suspicious of anything he writes as it is right in line with what unreliable sources push on their base. So even if Tablet were rated a RS, Smith isn't and could not be used here, at least for AP2. Russia would love him, and the Russian Wikipedia probably rates him a RS. -- Valjean (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It comes as no surprise that Lee Smith wrote a number of articles for Breitbart (https://www.brei...tbart.com/tag/lee-smith/). His mindset is the same as the blacklisted website. "Birds of a feather...." -- Valjean (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nixonian press corps"? Hmm. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sine wiggles
You forgot to sign at ol’ Jules Assange talk page - and so did sinebot. (Have you turned her off with the category and then forgotten to tilde? Colour me appalled). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure I've done anything with the sinebot. I'm so used to using the reply link which automatically signs that I usually forget when doing an old fashioned edit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RSN list of perennial RS
That is not a comprehensive list. It only contains sources that have been questioned, so RS that have not been questioned are not mentioned there, and the reason they have not been questioned is that their reliability is usually not seen as questionable. The reason some of our most prominent RS are seen there (NYT and WaPo) is because fringe right-wing querulants have complained so much that an official decision needed to be made. They see anything left of their own extreme right-wing position as communist propaganda. They just don't realize that their own position is as extreme as it is. That is especially true for American politics. Europeans consider CNN as centrist, NYT and WaPo as somewhat right-wing, the WSJ as even more right-wing, and Fox as extreme right-wing, with Breitbart, Hannity, Carlson, etc as off the charts right-wing.

Lawfare is maintained by legal experts and is a subject matter expert source of very high quality. Keep in mind the caution about blogs is from the old days when blogs were personal diaries. Now the blog format is also used as the official website for some businesses, news media, political campaigns, politicians, scientists, anti-health fraud skeptical organizations, etc. So don't object just because the word "blog" appears. You should check out Lawfare and read their stuff. It's really good. They dig deep and provide background and sources at a level one rarely sees.

You also need to stop allowing your personal likes and dislikes to guide your editing. Articles are not playthings. Use the talk page. You need to have solid policy-based reasoning, and you don't. Your edits and deletions just create disruption and you're rightly seen as an extremist right-wing partisan warrior whose edits tend toward whitewashing of Trump. You need to get rid of that image. It's not a good look.

BTW, while I usually follow BRD, I don't when edits are like vandalism, IOW without any policy-based reasoning. -- Valjean (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You've packed that article full of such trivial minutiae that it is completely unreadable. It's one of the most unreadable articles on the project. It is an encyclopedia entry with a novella-like 27,000 words of prose, and you are continually adding more.
 * If you will notice my edit summary for removal also said "far too much detail into otherwise unsourced allegations and minutae[sic]," which you haven't bothered to address either. Allegations, allegations, allegations, allegations. Enough with allegations. We wouldn't accept that on other articles, so it is time you stop pushing them on the Steele Dossier.
 * You come here calling me a extremist right-wing partisan warrior and my policy based reverts vandalism. You've been blocked several times for misbehavior. You used to have a civility restriction you were required to abide by, and somehow think these personal attacks give you reason to insert contested content. You know how BRD works, so follow it. If you are convinced your text has merit it will gain consensus on the talk page. What's the rush?
 * There never was a pee tape. Let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the existence or non-existence of the pee tape have to do with anything? That question has zero relation to our PAG, yet you continually mention it as if you were a newbie who has no clue about what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Our inclusion criteria for widely cited content from RS requires we document such allegations, true or not. -- Valjean (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Steele dossier
I don't like templating a regular, but just for the record you need an official warning for your tendentious editing:

Your recent editing history at Steele dossier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There's also a WP:OWN template which I ought to give you. Please follow BRD, as for the record you started the edit war. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow I had no idea the vitriol extended to your talk page! These people are as relentless as they are delusional and hypocritical.  Stay strong! 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean is my friend, but we just have some very fundamental disagreements about certain facts. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You're a more forgiving and gracious person than I.￼ 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI
Apparently an opportunity to attack and assume bad faith of MastCell is too good to miss. Why do you lower the tone on ANI by talking like that? Do you realize that people can be page-blocked from ANI if they post enough such stuff? It has happened. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC).
 * It's possible to 'lower the tone' of ANI? Arkon (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you know! I agree with Mr Ernie, and I disagree with Bishonen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What if I called them an "extremist left-wing partisan warrior" instead? That type of language seems to be ok, although granted it was just at my talk page and not the august and stately halls of ANI. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bish I trust you'll be approaching Floq about their "lowering the tone" as well. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well this is disappointing to see, but not unexpected I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just now saw this, and it is more than disappointing, PME. Imagine how it makes me feel considering the circumstances. I'm so sorry this happened to you, Mr Ernie., thank you for your forthrightness. I just hope the intimidation ends here, but the patterned history doesn't make me hopeful. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)