User talk:Pformenti

June 2018
Hello, I'm NZ Footballs Conscience. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, LifeGem, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NZFC (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NZ,

I appreciate you giving me information how to correctly post it. I contributed to this article as I saw that on the talk page there was a demand to include this on Lifegem's page. If you visit the talk for the site there is even a topic dedicated to it. You are asking me to show reliable articles but there is no reliable articles to base anything for the company. There was talk and disturbance among the community around 2008 regarding it and then once more around 2015 but nothing was done as a measure to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I have linked a notable forum which mentions all of this on top of this, the US Patent Office does not show this online which would be a notable source. In mentioning that a Robert James a British fellow from the International School of Gemology. This seems very lackadaisical on Wikipedia's behalf to accept this article and not take it down.

Notice
– Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thunder Road (2018 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from adding the filmmakers own editorializing in the article this is an encyclopedia not a reddit Pformenti (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a valid reason, put it into the edit summary. It's literally that simple 99.9% of the time. Edit summaries tell other editors what your rationale is. Other editors can't read your mind. —valereee (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no source for the contents I removed and reads like a press report and therefore should not be included or used on Wikipedia Pformenti (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Lincoln Project. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I am aware of that rule, however I do not know how to discuss my reversion and reasoning for why it warrants inclusion. Initially I did so on the talk page (which got repeatedly deleted by another Wiki editor requiring I go to the admins about restoring it). There was no response on the talk page and nobody was able argue why it doesn’t warrant inclusion so I am curious why I cannot contribute on the article. I found a relevant source and discussed it in the talk page and National Review per WP sources list has no consensus meaning it can be attributed. Again this is a noteworthy event and all of the news covered it thus it deserves mention regardless of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Pformenti (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution has guidance. We operate on consensus here. Sometime I think I have a great idea, but nobody supports it, and I move on.  The WP:ONUS is on the editor to get consensus from others.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dasha Nekrasova (4th Nomination)
Can you help me take down this, flagrant advertising and self promotion on this website which is supposed to be free of that stuff. Thanks. RightStuff4 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:John Weaver (political consultant), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Pformenti, your comment on that talk page gives me reason to believe you should not edit BLPs, or even BLP talk pages, since it seems to lead you toward unfounded accusations that disregard various policies--the BLP, but also WP:AGF. Specifically, accusing NedFausa of "whitewashing" is not acceptable. Your comments on Talk:Jared Kushner are also POINTy and suggest a POV, and that POV is also evident in the improper edit to The Lincoln Project (where your editorial commentary, based on an unreliable source, is unacceptable). So in addition to a topic ban from BLPs, you might be topic-banned from AP articles as well: you were alerted to discretionary sanctions. I invite the commentary of and .'' Drmies (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AVOIDYOU and don't accuse others of whitewashing. I mentioned before that the WP:ONUS is on the person adding information to establish consensus for its inclusion. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba I think the main issue I have is that what's been happening on Wikipedia out of pure detest for Trump and his administration gives credence to right-wing conspiracies that Wikipedia is acting out of bad-faith and somehow an arm of the modern Democratic party. An instance would be the concerted effort to try and use disingenuous or highly POV language like calling the Burisma deal with Hunter Biden a debunked right-wing conspiracy in the lede of the article. This kind of language presumes a multitude of things

1) Hunter Biden who has zero experience in the energy sector did not get a job vis-vi his father's political position (Vice president) and heading Ukraine to US foreign relations. In fact, even people in Obama's administration spoke against Hunter holding this position since it raised ethical questions and is like I said gunpowder for the right-wing conspiracy machine "swamp elite" talking point.

2) What is the claim that is being debunked? This kind of phrasing is essentially straw-manning the argument to be something that is clearly not true and easily disputed, nor is anyone claiming or arguing. It is simply indisputable that his position along with the emails detailing his business dealings is instances of pay per play politics. For those who wish to look at both sides of the argument, there is a richness of information in the emails that you'd have to be outright biased and insane to not associate with foul play or in the least an instance of selling political favors.

In fact, the Biden campaign has even confirmed the contents of the laptop to be true and engaged in a smear campaign on Bobulinski who ironically was initially intended to stay silent until he was thrown under the proverbial bus. Nowhere in any media publication does it say Bobulinski’s claims have been debunked only that they remain unproven or still awaiting investigation. So through this goal post moving extravaganza, we arrive at the root of the problem, Wikipedia taking that and stretching the truth.

3) There are even articles from left-wing sources noting Wikipedia hit-men hired to clean up political figures articles. I am sure that didn't raise ethical alarms for you but to me and people who have no political affiliation, it does. Moreover, the editing and whitewashing is real and is demonstrated in the article below from Intercept and SF Gate.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANwQGjb9nzwaM0L4WcBNPMi2u1r6X3-c1Juac8gmTJin99QHQFIuqGqPuWQOTbHF3hH-JZS80vpqkyAlT7kPJEqgbhtxPuFANn2Lvap-O5GeF-K-UUwoxM-j9K69JwfcBQb6pl4W2F57D2pv08PE556lxJcn4vfSRhQXJOknqLiQ

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kamala-harris-wikipedia/

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-Biden-vice-president-Wikipedia-page-15386023.php

4) While my tone is not academic and accusatory I simply cannot stay silent without calling out the very editors who I recurringly see monitoring BLP pages of Democrat political figures and using their moderator powers to stop the free discussion of ideas and overall ensure that their preferred candidates be spared from any scathing criticism. Calling it WP: UNDUE when the sources they have deemed acceptable paint a grimmer picture of a said political figure is now commonplace as well.

5) We need to be careful with blatant double-standards of holding people we disagree with politically or loathe to the absolute standards of scrutiny and then covering our ears and eyes when it's someone we like. This kind of partisanship affects elections and puts our Democracy in jeopardy since the average person doesn't have the time to do their own research and utilize critical thinking instead of hearing the murmurings of reporters (if you can call them that anymore) who are owned and slaves to the billionaires who pay their bills. Lockheed Martin who does 90% of their business with the US does not want a president who will not enter us into more wars failing to continue to destroy Syria and Libya which due to Obama/Hilary's foreign policy are open-air slave markets or reduced to rubble.

In conclusion, you basically presented what I am doing as vandalism but in truth, all I did was try to edit Lincoln Project's page to include details about Iranian disinformation regarding how they inadvertently spread Iranian disinformation. This was covered by the National Review which as a source states there is no consensus so requires Wiki editors to vote for inclusion. I am 100% certain that had it been the Trump administration or Project Veritas spreading disinformation deemed by intelligence officials to stem from a foreign adversary it would be included in a heartbeat by one of these Wiki mods who just happen to police every BLP in the Democrat party.

Again to reiterate, what I tried to include was confirmed by the intelligence agencies/FBI/ and state department to be true, just like how they confirmed Hunter's laptop to not be Russian disinformation and hack, and yet it still has been left out by the Wikipedias ministry of truth in lieu of "debunked right-wing conspiracies". So please do censor my voice so you can achieve a complete hegemony of ideological control over this website, the foundation is bleeding dry because quite simply it's hard for people to see the value of an encyclopedia that just parrots the mainstream media's talking points without giving any kind of detachment or neutral POV for those who saw Wikipedia as a way to see the full picture. Pformenti (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC) (talk, how would you describe obfuscating the Hunter Biden story from his page on Wikipedia? The media covered it in swarths as soon as the election was over, this is called whitewashing. Pformenti (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pformenti, thank you for the response--it's a bit long for my taste and I'll be brief. The Kamala Harris case, involving editor Bnguyen1114, I was one of the editors who objected not so much to their POV, but to their enormous padding of articles: we are an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive collection of facts. That editor was topic-banned; please note that my objections to their edits were in May already, long before it made the press. I didn't present what you did as vandalism: it was a clear personal attack, although not a precise one. These accusations of whitewashing are ridiculous, and I'll have you know that the editor who revdeleted the BLP violations from the article is hardly a right-wing operative; you'd know that if you looked more carefully. Same with some of the editors who removed the content. I mean, if you're going to accuse of being a right-winger you'll get laughed at. And none of this is about Hunter Biden. So, I'll say this again: do not personalize conflicts, and do not willy-nilly accuse editors and admins of "whitewashing". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malcolm Nance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)