User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2021

My user talkpage
Saw and Replied to your comment… further discussion can take place there if need be. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Thank you for your revert.
Thank you for your revert of my edit at WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Why am I thanking you? Because your revert shows that my edit could be read to have the opposite effect of what I intended. I also write to ask whether you agree that it would be a good idea to add text making it clear that a discussion can continue after a collapse. If your answer is yes then we can talk about what language would accomplish that goal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Butwhatdoiknow, I would gladly continue the discussion on the talk page of the guideline. --Thinker78 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Elizabeth II. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this warning was posted after I reverted the revert of DrKay after I noticed that the policy he claimed in the edit (SPS) did not , in my opinion, apply to the case. Instead of limiting themself to make another edit with the appropriate policy, he plastered this warning on my talk page like if I was guilty of a violation of policy, when my intention when I reverted was simply remove an edit that , in my opinion, wasn't backed by the claim contained in the edit summary. Thinker78 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Edited 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a vanity press book by a sock puppet LTA. Although I provided a brief edit summary, not even that was necessary. Edits performed by blocked users in violation of a block or ban can be reverted at any time without reference to content policies. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 00:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was posted because after several hours of analysis of candidates for the board of Wikimedia, I decided to make a recommendation for other editors who might not know who to vote for or don't have the time to analyze all the candidates' statements. I think there should be a space dedicated to discuss and be free to make recommendations for said elections. Thinker78 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't stop you from noting your endorsements on your own user or user-talk page. I think there are some rules about campaigning, but I can't find a definitive link on the topic.  Regardless, posting your endorsements at the Village Pump was so obviously going to go badly that I felt I had no choice but to revert the post adding discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockstrike
Hi, In response to your recent revert, I don't usually revert every single thing by a sock but this sock master is notorious for using WP:FAKE references. From my experience, almost all their content addition is filled with WP:OR and fictional references. Just make sure what they've added is present in the reference. Best -  SUN EYE 1  16:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The info seems legit and reflects info found elsewhere. --Thinker78 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The content was likely copy pasted from this this self published book and they had cited a book which I can't access. I don't trust them here as the same IP has added unsourced content with misleading edit summary. Per WP:V, the content provided must be in the source. The sock master usually adds fake references to back up their personal commentary but this is new. -  SUN EYE 1  04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please see that long term socking like this one should be Deny recognition. The user has probably read this conversation and has also created a section below.-  SUN EYE 1  16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. You can place a copy of this discussion in the talk of the relevant article (Jainism) so other editors can discuss the situation as well. Thinker78 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

HELP
The revert Jainism in India did by Suneye1 is not needed actually. It is per source only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someuser1234 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG I was ready to call 911 when I saw the caps on my notification! Please discuss this in the talk page of the article where you made the edit. You can copy (not cut) the comment you made here and place it over there, but with a different heading, more objective, I suggest.--Thinker78 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Tavrin draft
Hi Thinker78, I see that you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and a member of WP:Russia. I’m reaching out to see if you can take a look at my draft for Ivan Tavrin, a Russian entrepreneur who has a Russian article already. I can’t publish it on my own with my conflict of interest. Thanks! Anastasia-kismet (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ✅
 * Anastasia-kismet I checked the aforementioned draft and the content looks good. But I noticed some things:
 * In the lede I don't know if you intended to link to Catholic schools when you talked about SPACS. If so, I don't think it is very relevant info that should be included. If not, correct the link because many people, including me, have no idea what a SPAC is.
 * The references need to be worked on, because there are many repeated ones. The same reference should be used if it backs up several pieces of information in different parts of the article.
 * Check if your references comply with the general notability guideline and related rules. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Thinker78 for your guidance. I've now changed the SPAC link in the lede and reorganized the references. In terms of the references complying, according to my understanding of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, both the English and Russian media outlets are reputable, third party sources that show significant coverage. I hope this answers all questions and I look forward to proceeding with the page when you believe it's ready. Anastasia-kismet (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will take another look next week because I don't have much time this week. If I haven't been back with you by Wednesdeay just remind me. Thinker78 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the draft is ready to become an article.Thinker78 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrific! Thanks for taking the time to look through this. Due to my conflict of interest, I believe I'm not supposed to move the draft to make it live. Could you do so, please? Anastasia-kismet (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me just work a bit more on the article, but because of my time constraints I may not be able to publish the article until late November/middle of December of this year. Feel free to ask other editors as well meanwhile, maybe they can do it sooner. Thinker78 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Anastasia-kismet (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19
I did not realize that I even made that rollback. That was an honest mistake, and thank you for correcting it. United States Man (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump "bias"
Regarding the just-closed discussion on the Trump talk page, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you might genuinely misunderstand how this stuff works. These discussions often close quickly just because folks are weary of saying the same things over and over for years.

Your vague perceptions and unsubstantiated doubts are not useful in that context. It's your responsibility to find the reliable sources to support what you want the article to say, and to sell the idea that those sources represent enough WP:WEIGHT to say it. Don't ask others to do that legwork for you. See WP:RSP for Wikipedia's current views of the reliability of many of the most prominent sources. Discussion about the reliability of a specific source is done at WP:RSN, not at article talk pages, and sometimes that discussion results in a change to WP:RSP.

By the way, I personally don't disagree that Wikipedia is vulnerable to group bias. I also have yet to find a better way. Everybody has a bias, including you, no matter how loudly they deny it. There could not be a Wikipedia Supreme Court of Neutrality, since it would be subject to the biases of its own judges. If one feels an article's regular editors are heavily weighted toward one side of the poitical spectrum, the ONLY remedy is to get more editors on the other side, and teach them how to use Wikipedia policy correctly. This is what I've been telling people for many years, and all we get is an endless stream of Trump supporters who make it obvious they don't know Thing 1 about Wikipedia policies, and don't care to.

Good luck. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, Who are you? You are entitled to your opinion and Im entitled to mine. I have no idea why are you telling me that it is my responsibility to find reliable sources. I did not make the edit request, I simply commented on it. Are you User:SPECIFICO? Thinker78 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You said: The question is, are there reliable sources that indicate the possibility the election was stolen or that there was a certain degree of fraud? My point is that it's a useless question and it asks others to do the legwork for you. If such sources exist in sufficient numbers, it's up to you to show that.I am 68.97.42.64 and I have not edited under a registered username for quite a long time. That's all you need to know about me. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm naturally curious, I 'd like to know more about you, but if you don't want to tell me more, I understand. The question I made is not useless, because the other editor was talking about "overwhelming" number of sources, not totality, so I was wondering what were the reliable sources that did support the opposing view. So, as you can see, the onus was not on me, because the other editor implied very few reliable sources supported the stolen election narrative. I wanted to know if there were indeed such reliable sources. Thinker78 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Like using the term allegedly, a good editor, reporter or debater uses a term like “overwhelming” instead of stating outright totality, even when they are certain of totality. Something life teaches you. This is the most investigated election in US history, and in 20 months only a couple dozen votes have been found to have been invalidly cast (apparently and ironically including that of Trump’s chief of staff and his wife ). As I am not a good editor, reporter or debater, I will state unequivocally that no RSN says the election was stolen as doing so would make them obviously unreliable. The onus is on you to show me incorrect.


 * Incidentally, the source used by the OP in that thread to “prove” a “cheat” is a well-known conspiracist who, ironically, was convicted of campaign finance violations (i.e. cheating). But, he was pardoned by Trump. I think most folk would consider this an unreliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a point about "overwhelming" but I wanted to know because some people do use the word literally. The onus is still not on me, because I didn't want to prove the election was stolen, but I wanted to know if any reliable sources state whether it was stolen, as I perceived the editor implied. Thinker78 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

DS alert US politics and BLP
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

a useful template when folks forget to sign
Just a handy tool to pass along... Re this helpful edit of yours, I usually just type which calls a bot and the bot handles the details. Sometimes it takes an hour or so. for an edit sum I just write something like "missing sig"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks. I thought about it too, but given that the date and time was already there I decided just to insert the name of the relevant editor. First time I see a comment with timestamp but no user name in this context. Although I know there is a use for timestamps without usernames, I am guessing the editor just pushed one time too many the key for the tilde.  Thinker78   (talk)  21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, the template "unsigned" can be used by itself, and you have at least two optional params if you want to use them.... username and timestamp. So in this case, you could have used  the existing time stamp in the param.   I'm not complaining, I was just passing on a minor thing I find convienient.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks, that is useful info I didn't consider. As you have probably noticed, I am big for minor things, in fact, my opinion is that many times minor things consideration is essential for quality work. Thinker78   (talk)  01:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Apology re my misreading of events at MOS/LEAD
I screwed up! I think I have a policy based reason to monitor your contribs, but I totally messed up while doing so, and wherever you want me to post a mea culpa to correct the record about this specific mistake I will sheepishly but gladly do so.

Here's what happened.

June 27 After a week's of patience with your table proposal at MOS/Lead talk, you reasonably went live with the table and edit summary "per talk" June 29 You got feedback calling for a change June 30 I saw "per talk" and looked for the thread. What did I see but someone calling for a change to the table! And then I screwed up. I thought you just ignored that person and went live anyway. I failed to notice that their feedback came two days after the fact. Based on my misreading of the dates I mistakenly thought this series of events was evidence of GAMING and of course its only evidence that I was slipping up in my own duty to exercise care.

I'll add some words at the template talk about this, and if I've made comment about the MOS/Lead stuff elsewhere that you want me to say something, please point it out so I can consider doing repair work there too.

We have other issues, maybe, and I'm not talking about any other points of contention, but on this one.... I'm totally in the wrong and apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy I don't think you are perfect, but I have to recognize that few editors apologize, thanks, and certainly apology accepted. :D Thinker78   (talk)  00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

closing "Trump bias" discussion
Hi, Thinker78. I'm not going to revert reopening the Trump bias discussion, but I did note there was a prior discussion about a similar thing @ User_talk:Thinker78. While the page you cited about a rule of thumb to keep discussions open for at least a week is fair enough, one of the exceptions to this rule of thumb is obvious tendentious POV pushing in violation of consensus, doubting the reliable sources policy, and other non-good-faith editing. I'm not accusing you of that, but the discussions opened by anon editors simply to opine that Wikipedia is left-wing biased, ignoring the fact that Wikipedia simply follows the reliable source record, do not need to wait a week to be closed. They may be closed quickly or in cases of WP:NOTFORUM or blatant violations of BLP or vandalism of other kinds, they may be reverted directly. Andrevan @ 17:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrevan, thanks for your reply. The problem is that, in my opinion, only one tendentious POV pushing is allowed in the talk page, and that is anti-Trump POV. For example, the comment in the thread at hand, ""some evil racist lunatic" This aptly summarizes his moral code. Dimadick". I have been against undue censorship for many years and I simply do not understand what is the use of closing discussions where right-wingers complain about perceived bias of Wikipedia. This simply doubles-down their suspicions and in the end they just boycott the project. I do not think closing these types of discussions, even if repetitive, is useful for Wikipedia at all. In fact I think it harms it. In my opinion, such discussions should be allowed to run its course, patiently explaining relevant policies and guidelines that are followed when admitting certain content in the article that seems to be partial or biased. But many times instead, ips and new users get hostile replies and get their discussions closed in short order, as to silence them. Thinker78  (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're trying to WP:RGW. We have policies like WP:POINT and WP:SNOW for a reason, coming in to relitigate solved issues under the banner of correcting anti-Trump bias, isn't allowed. Fox News is not reliable, and Larry Sanger is entitled to his opinion, if you agree with him that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased, you should go edit Conservapedia, Everipedia, Citizendium, not Wikipedia. But Larry doesn't work here anymore. I recommend you drop this crusade and focus on WP:RS, WP:V, which accurately leads our article to say: Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. He won the 2016 United States presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton but lost the popular vote, becoming the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests. The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit the Trump campaign, but did not establish that members of the Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia. Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic.  Andrevan @ 20:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan, thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with your undue censorship notions that don't conform with or misinterprets Wikipedia's guidance, although it aligns with similarly-minded editors. Thinker78  (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the most part, these complaints are made by people who know nothing about Wikipedia content policies and the underlying principles. Worse, they rarely seem to have any interest in learning about them. Volunteer editors have better things to do than spend man-hours trying to reason with and educate these people. On the other hand, we should not be completely dismissive, reverting without a reply, calling them trolls, and so on. They should be referred to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, which was created precisely to save editors the time that was previously required to explain the same things over and over again, and the thread should then be closed. Per consensus #13, it should then be archived after 24 hours. The OP can then look into the details of the related policy if they have any interest, or they can sign up for Adopt-a-User if they want to get serious about editing. They can also ask further questions at Teahouse, whose purpose is to educate both editors and non-editing users. But article talk pages are not for education of such people, few of us are very good at it, and it's not what we signed up for. We're here to create, maintain, and improve articles. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and for the information about consensus 13 that I was not aware of. Regarding your statement, "article talk pages are not for education of such people", it's not about "general education", it is discussions related about their criticism that there is bias in the page of Donald Trump specifically. It comes to mind WP:TALK, which states the purpose of article's talk pages. When someone claims that the article is biased and not neutral, such discussion is well within the purpose of the article's talk page. Thinker78  (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that you can't just make unfounded claims about general bias, it's akin to casting aspersions. You need to be specific about what is biased, how, why, and what to change it to or how to address the bias. Even just a rough understanding of the answer to those questions would be fine. But IPs dropping by to claim, without a source, that "Trump is actually left-wing because Congress passed a stimulus bill," a) it's not true, b) it's not verifiable, c) even if a source says this, it's probably a WP:FRINGE view, d) they haven't provided any sources to substantiate this, e) similar trolls or disruptive editors have repeatedly made claims for which a,b,c,d apply. Andrevan @ 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The bias I notice is in the talk page of the article, not necessarily in the article itself. I did point out what I considered to be biased, namely discussions of criticism that the article is not neutral are not allowed and are rapidly shut down. I am not talking about forum statements, but specifically, claims that the page is not neutral. Thinker78  (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that "claims that the page is not neutral" need sources and examples, or else they will be closed if it's just mud-slinging and FUD. Andrevan @ 22:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the problem is that people come to make claims that the article is not neutral, an editor invites them to provide examples, but instead of waiting to see if the person brings up examples, which can take many days while the response is seen, the discussion is closed. Thinker78  (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And there's nothing preventing the person from starting a new discussion with the examples, ideally after reading the "Response" page. That page needs to be better evangelized, by the way, so that it will be linked instead of inviting them to provide examples. It should be used consistently by all of the article's regulars, as I've described previously, and you could help with that. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "And there's nothing preventing the person from starting a new discussion". I don't understand why someone would do that if the previous post was shut down. Even long time editors like myself sometimes come to pages where there is a cadre of editors who threaten anyone who speaks against their group thinking, basically implying that anyone who dare to challenge what they think and tries to defend such opinion is disruptive and fails to get the point.  Thinker78  (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is disruptive and failing to get the point, if you go to pages and look at the reliably sourced and referenced and verifiable info, and say, "it's biased," but don't offer any examples as to why or how. Especially some editors who seem to do this for multiple related pages and do things like cite Fox News op-eds that allege systemic bias. That would be disruptive yes, if it continued after consensus was found that it was not valid. Andrevan @ 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And you keep failing to get the point. Are you still sticking to the point that I am claiming the article is biased? Because I have already said I did not, or at least my main point is that the situation in the talk page of Donald Trump is biased in that criticism of the neutrality of the article is rapidly shut down. Thinker78  (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the IP editors you are defending. Andrevan @ 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The above-linked information page tells them everything they need to know, including how to get more information should they be interested. Time was invested to make it say it concisely, clearly, completely, and respectfully, things that are harder to come by with ad hoc responses. There is simply no justification for additional editor time expenditure. As indicated on that page, we are more than happy to entertain specific, policy-based suggestions. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the 'hatting' method either. But, at least it's a tad better then the 'collapsing hatting' method. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for Talk:Donald Trump, that was wrong venue from the outset, and it matters not that other editors chose to entertain it in that venue. That being the case, I'd suggest closing it. Thinker, I think an editor with your experience should've known that such things are not decided on article talk pages. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You should read my post again, because it is a reminder for editors editing the Donald Trump page that not all mainstream news sources are reliable for all contexts. In your opinion, where should I have posted such a reminder? Thinker78  (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Such a reminder is not needed unless you have an example where that wasn't already known or being done. Andrevan @ 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but I would've made any such reminder in the content-specific discussion(s) instead of creating a separate meta thread. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If someone starts a thread claiming bias without providing any examples, or by ranting about the media or editors or Wkipedia; they are exhibiting bias themselves. Hatting such removes bias and saves editor time. Quite a bit of time considering how often this occurs. And please, let us not suggest that we should pander to POV pushers who demand we change editing to look nonbiased to them. We will always look biased to overly-biased folk, as we should. WP must avoid bias in articles -- not engage in false equivalencies or add ridiculous sources to "look" non-biased. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Info is power
Forgive me, but I can't get into any governmental info control-related topic discussions. As I don't know exactly which topics will be affected. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Warning, Talk:Donald_Trump
I would highly suggest you never, ever post something like this again on this project. You cannot insinuate that Wikipedia editors with whom you may have a philosophical disagreement with are a part of some Gestapo-like propaganda ministry, here to influence political articles. If this is repeated, or you unhat the comment, I will consider pursuing the available remedies at Arbitration Enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there are several editors prepared to recommend a TBAN or site ban for you, Thinker. I second ValarianB's comment. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @ SPECIFICO, ValarianB, "You cannot insinuate that Wikipedia editors with whom you may have a philosophical disagreement with are a part of some Gestapo-like propaganda ministry". First, read again what I wrote. Second, even though it was in response to a comment by Goodday of a certain article, actually I was thinking in neutral terms and even globally, that politicians, governments and others of any political spectrum ideology or philosophy may engage in shady practices to seek to push certain narrative in Wikipedia. My intention was in no way suggesting it was only editors with certain ideology. Btw, I am no fan of Trump nor I am a Conservative. Thinker78  (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh of course you're not. Nobody ever suggested that. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree in principle. I haven't closely watched the talk page, but it seems to me you're flirting with chronic disruption. I think you have the potential to provide a useful voice of opposition, which can be a healthy thing, but your participation definitely needs calibration. I worked that article for years and can attest that I was never approached by these dark forces. Conspiracy theory (belief without concrete evidence) does seem to be a common thread among Trump defenders. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Chronic disruption? Sure pal. My record speaks for itself. Maybe you are part of the Censorship of Wikipedia. Thinker78  (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are accusing Slatersteven of being an agent of a foreign government? Seems to confirm his concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO I replied to anonymous ip, I dont know why you are involving Slatersteven. Thinker78  (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Slatersteven the ip accused me of chronic disruption and that I need calbration. That is literally censorhip. So why don't you point out WP:NPA to the ip as well? Funny how selective are you. Thinker78  (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Becaue you are accusing me (in effect) of bias and vague accusations of "some government or otherwise political gatekeepers" pushing a narrative, aimed at dismissing other edited opinions. That is not acceptable. The IP accused you of a specific policy violation (read wp:disruption), which is not a PA as such. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven look, if you can't properly follow a thread, that is not my fault, it is something you need to improve. I replied to GoodDay about their mention of the Hunter Biden article and editors within. The fact that your comment "You would need to go there and ask" was in the middle was arbitrary and in no way I was even thinking about you or your comment. This illustrates very much the problematic mindset of some editors, who even label accusations against others based on their severe misinterpretations of comments. Why would you, the ip or @SPECIFICO think that I was talking about you? Only because your comment was in the middle? Can't you people realize that Slatersteven comment was completely irrelevant to what I replied to GOODDAY? Am I missing something? If so please point it out. Thinker78  (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your misappropriation of Censorship to shame a peer who disputes your opinion or behavior is remarkably similar to the Trumpist and far-right claims that they are being "censored" by private companies and individuals who choose to ignore their false or inflammatory statements. SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO I understand your opinion, that's your mindset. I don't agree with it, but I know no one is perfect. Thinker78  (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well good for you. Admitting your flaws is the first step on the path to improvement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a clear NPA violation to accuse fellow editors of being involved in some conspiracy without concrete evidence, even if you don't point specifically to certain individuals. That was WAY out of line. It is not an NPA violation to call you out for that, or for other issues in your participation. The latter happens every day since we are required to be largely self-policed (a bad idea in my opinion, but it is what it is). I don't understand why you can't see the difference, but your continued participation in the project will depend on your capacity to learn the difference, among other things. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "It's a clear NPA violation to accuse fellow editors of being involved in some conspiracy without concrete evidence". Do you know how to read properly? Who are you accusing me of accusing? "your continued participation in the project" You are the one who is way out of line coming here to threaten me baselessly with your wrong assumptions like that. Who do you think you are? Why are you even hiding behind an anonymous IP? Even if you were a high shot in Wikipedia, guess what, I CONTRIBUTE my time and effort to this project, you don't pay me a dime nor I get any financial benefit from it. So you can swallow your arrogant threats, take whatever administrative action you deem fit, move on and stop wasting my time. Thinker78  (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, maybe I hit a nerve and there is indeed something shady going on. I wouldn't be surprised, judging by your threats, Mrs anonymous IP. Thinker78  (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you self-revert this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, let him leave it for all to see. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You accused unnamed editors here. If your position is that you merely suggested unnamed editors might be involved in the conspiracy, that changes exactly nothing; it's still a violation of NPA. Then you accused me specifically, here. And you have repeatedly suggested that there might be something nefarious in the fact that I don't log in for my comments (e.g. "hiding behind an anonymous IP"), when that is fully supported by Wikipedia and WMF policy. There is no "hiding" involved in logged out editing unless one is also editing logged in some of the time and seeking to avoid association with that username. You have zero evidence of that, but you are free to make use of WP:SPI if you think you do. Otherwise, keep your suspicions to yourself please. Since you are doubling down on your indefensible position, I would encourage any editor to "take whatever administrative action [they] deem fit, move on and stop wasting [your] time." 68.97.42.64 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thinker78  (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. But wait, there's more! 68.97.42.64 is no more "anonymous" than Thinker78, unless Thinker78 is your true name and I could use it to locate you in Guatemala, run a background search on you, etc. In truth, we wouldn't have known you're in Guatemala if you hadn't said so, and we would have no way of finding that out. In contrast, you can geolocate my IP address and at least find out my probable location within about 50 miles (unless I'm playing tricks with VPN, etc, which I'm not). So who's "anonymous"? 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, but for Wikipedia an ip user is the anonymous user, while a registered user with a long contribution history is not. Thinker78  (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. An IP user is usually easier to trace. All users are anon unless they are outed (a violation) or self-out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I agree wholeheartedly about contribution history, and I have strongly supported required registration and lost. So that's the Wikiworld we live in and have to accept. That's an issue of accountability, not anonymity, and perhaps it's merely a difference in semantics. I'm reluctant to disclose my former username as a matter of principle (i.e., I shouldn't have to), but if it will make you feel better I'll go ahead and say that I'm the editor formerly known as . I am 99% retired and I don't feel that the remaining 1% is materially inconsistent with my claim of retirement (O3000 appears to be in the same position but chooses to do their 1% logged in, which is also fine). I rarely edit articles, never edit articles anymore in the AP2 area, and minimize my participation in talk spaces. I don't log in except for watchlist purposes, and I'm pretty good at remembering to log out before posting a comment. I hope this meets with your approval. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess now we can have a user virtual reveal party. If you are retired maybe you should consider editing articles about retirement. Thinker78  (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, great to see you aren’t totally gone. Thinker, Mandruss was one of the few truly unbiased editors in the AP arena. We both drastically reduced editing at the same time. I don't edit mainspace (articles) anymore and only poke in when I feel damage is nigh. You would be wise to follow his counsel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AP arena? I am broke so I can't pay much counsel, except when I really need to. Thinker78  (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AP = American Politics. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no less biased than the next guy, but I'll accept the compliment that I was better than many at controlling my bias, while nobody can do that 100%. It's important to speak about these things with precision, and sometimes the distinction makes a difference. Back at you, by the way. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, even if one's goal is to be completely neutral, it is a hard task, because at any given moment, one's own even subconscious beliefs can jump out of nowhere in the most unexpected moment. Only later one could realize that sometimes. But still I do try my best to remain neutral, unbiased, and objective. Thinker78  (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not hard to check an IP's editing history 68.97.42.64 has been editing since 22:55, 18 June 2007. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt anybody here needs that explained to them. The point is that there was no way to connect 68.97.42.64's history with that of Mandruss, although they are the same person. And IP addresses change if you move, or if your ISP just decides to change them for some technical reason. 68.97.42.64's first four edits weren't even me! The long IPv6 addresses (like 2603:7000:b901:8500:a460:2afd:d495:abde) change even more frequently, sometimes daily, and the history is lost every time they change. This is one of the reasons I supported required registration. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment was about the idea you can't see what the IP is up to, or hiding behind an IP (in effect an accusation of wp:socking), as well as the idea the IP did not have a long editing history, that can be checked. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * However this comment causes me to pause for thought, as you can create an account, so if you "supported required registration", why are you using an IP? Also you are aware it 3was you IP I was talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already have an account, Mandruss. I've been editing logged-out since my retirement since it helps remind me that I'm 99% retired. As Mandruss, it would be easier to get gradually sucked back in. Also, by editing logged-out, I'm doing my small part to help illustrate the need for required registration, as it has recently on this page. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummm you are making a point for ip editing though. Lol. Thinker78  (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia manipulation and influence
You are indeed an independent thinker. Pleased to know you.

Based on your stance against censorship, I assume your talk page is an open forum, and that you wouldn't mind people sharing their thoughts here.

So, here it goes...

I'm surprised there haven't been more discovered cases of political or corporate editing of the English Wikipedia (WP). At the same time, I assume that it goes without saying that certain language WPs are heavily censored and massaged.

IMO, it is only a matter of time before corporations openly edit whatever they want on WP. Currently, a team of 2 or 3 paid editors would be hard to revert on most articles, and 5 to 10 would be nearly undeafable on most of the rest. When they all hop on the bandwagon, they'll drown out (i.e., out revert and out vote) volunteer editors, many of whom will likely quit editing altogether, thinning out whatever opposition there was.

As for editing by political entities, it would likely be covert, dominated by foreign interests, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has already been happening since the day WP was founded.

Paranoid?

Wikipedia is among the top sites for organic (human) browsing, if not the top site.

Why wouldn't it be a target for influence?

Meanwhile, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

(Emphasis added).

Which makes it a low hanging fruit.

That's an open invitation to modify WP's public content, to manage public images, frame issues, sway elections, etc.

The most strategic places to hit would be policy and guideline pages, but those might take larger edit teams to control. Though, once you did so, you will have co-opted WP's army of editors, who follow those rules.

A type of special interest group that wasn't mentioned above are members of a profession. Such SIGs have already dominated some major topic areas, through the relevant policy pages, in plain view, some for the greater good, others, not so much.

I expect SIG and coordinated POV editing will continue to grow over time, until it becomes the norm.

What's your take on all of this, and can it be prevented?

I look forward to reading any and all replies. &mdash; The Transhumanist  08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Covert or not, coordinated or not, repeated POV pushing would be ineffectual due to other editors, or met with a TBan or NOTHERE block so long as WP has diligent contributors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Out of curiosity, what did you mean by "ineffectual due to other editors"?  &mdash; The Transhumanist   11:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It takes a good guy with a pen to stop a bad guy with a pen. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you are talking about reversion, right? What about when the one is outnumbered? On Wikipedia, can a good guy with a pen stop 2 bad guys with pens? My whole post above was about the future potential of being outnumbered by paid editors. The majority of pages do not have many editors, so on most pages 2 paid editors might be enough to form consensus for their employer, with larger teams able to take on higher traffic articles.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   12:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why there are dispute resolution processes, noticeboards, RFCs, article tags. In the long run, policies and guidelines will win out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Considering that sometimes a regular person who becomes irate is willing to kill someone for using the wrong words, I can imagine the extent to which corrupt, despotic or highly ideological entities or people with a lot of power and money can go in order to push a narrative, conceal information or control it. If little broke me is neutral and unbiased and as @The Transhumanist said, there is a surreptitious campaign to take over certain article that few other editors are interested in, it would be very easy to hire some people to drown my objections out. Worst case, said entities could even go after editors who edit in certain articles with more traffic.
 * How many editors are willing to ignore threats against them for a hobby they have in their spare time? How many would be willing to stand their ground in the face of bullying, detention or egregious physical attacks by the government and mobs? In Guatemala there was a period of time where I can say in an anecdote form that the police (most of whom only had elementary school education) and soldiers (most of whom only knew how to read and write) would enter people's homes randomly looking for leftist propaganda or controversial books. If any was found, the homeowner or even his whole family was arrested, maybe even tortured and killed. In fact, my mother got rid of all my deceased grandfather's books because she was afraid the government could come and kill us. Thinker78  (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All these makes me wonder how many Wikipedians have been muffled in Guatemala by the government, crooks, criminal organizations, companies or other entities. Because the situation here is such that even judges and mid level officials are being persecuted by the government itself. Thinker78  (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Transhumanist Pleased to meet you as well. You asked, "What's your take on all of this, and can it be prevented?" The risk can be reduced, but completely prevented or avoided, probably not. It would be a matter to seriously consider the prospect of a hostile takeover of articles or even the whole of Wikipedia and issues such as threats to Wikipedians or even members of the Wikimedia Foundation, their harrassment, arrest, blackmail, payback, kickback, the surreptitious hiring of editors for an outside agenda, and similar situations. There would be a need for careful planning to mitigate the possibility of those things from happening. Undue censorship is an ongoing issue though. Thinker78  (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're talking about English Wikipedia in whole or in part, I would posit that there is nothing that could be done about it, provided the bad guys are prepared to invest the time to learn Wikipedia policy and establish histories of seemingly good-faith editing. That being the case, I would posit that talking about it does more harm than good, making us all (even more) suspicious of each other and undermining the WP:AGF principle. We're of course allowed to believe whatever we want. 68.97.42.64 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I got called over to the page Talk:Singularity University, by a staff member of that organization. It looks like Conflict of interest and Edit requests are being followed in this instance. There is hope for Wikipedia, yet!  &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Tips for you
I noticed that you are a supporter or fan of the tip of the day project.

Which reminded me of some tools I use so often that I've stopped thinking of them as extras, and perceive them as part of the WP interface.

I thought you might find them useful too, so, here they are...

The first tip is listed at the tip-of-the-day department:


 * March 18 – Breaking the 500-edit limit in "View History"


 * It's easier to search a history (e.g., for a username) when there is more of the history loaded.


 * Note that the tip also works on search results!

The next tip is a script I oversaw development on:


 * SearchSuite.js


 * It turns WP's search into a more powerful navigation aid and editing tool. You control the format, as it allows you to toggle various parts of search results on/off, including a custom one included only in SearchSuite. I use SearchSuite to view search results as a list of articles, without anything else. That way, you get a lot more articles listed on the screen at once.

You can combine these 2 tips for an even more powerful way to browse WP:


 * In searchsuite, turn details off, so that each entry in the search result is presented on a single line. Then change the limit to 5000 (according to the first tip above), so you can browse search results as lists up to 5000 entries long.

I was very surprised to discover that you don't have any userscripts installed.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Thinker78&namespace=2&hideredirects=1

I highly recommend that you take the leap. &mdash; The Transhumanist  11:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello
How does one get their post to go 'below' the light bulb image? This is how. BTW, IP-in-question, I knew for 'bout two months that you were Mandruss logged-out :) GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The template with the lightbulb image is intended to float at the bottom of the page. That was how it was designed, so that the tip, which changes daily, is easily noticed for review purposes. Fixed it.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor trying to shut down discussion
I started a thread about the first sentence of the article Louis X of France. I have been having meaningful discussion with another editor who disagrees with the change I did. They reverted me but I followed the BRD process. Unfortunately an editor (User:JayBeeEll|JBL) has jumped in trying to shut down the discussion, accusing me baselessly of various things. I have spent many hours analyzing the first sentence of the article and the points made by KansasBear, because I like to make quality contributions to Wikipedia in as neutral way as possible. It is very frustrating when another editor jumps in accusing me of things after I have done a lot of detailed and long work with the edit and its discussion trying to improve the project.

I don't understand why they just try to shut down a discussion that doesn't even have 48 hours. I believe the discussion was progressing and it reached a stage where I made proposals taking into account what other editors stated. Also, it is evident that I put a lot of effort in my arguments. It is not even that there have been many editors countering my arguments with quality points (the editor just says "it is clear the other version is better" without providing any reason why they think it is clear). This is extremely disappointing and frustrating and is a trend I have seen in other editors' posts as well.

What these situations are doing is making me think if I should stop spending hours analyzing, researching, and just instead put little effort in my edits and avoid discussing much to not get accused of not getting the point or being disruptive, among other things. Because many times, once one of these editors who want to shut down discussion appears, their friends who monitor their posts also show up and mob up on me. They seem to think that discussions should stop as fast as possible and any effort to countering others arguments is seen as disruptive. The method of suppressing efforts to try to offer evidence in a sustained and meaningful discussion is not seeking consensus, but just impose one point of view, which may not be even according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would appreciate assistance. Thinker78 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an appropriate use of the adminhelp template. If you have a problem with 's conduct during that discussion that you cannot resolve otherwise, take it to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 thanks for your reply. At least some empathy would have been great. But it is what it is. Thanks for the info though. Thinker78  (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice sought
Hello. I am looking for some advice. I am involved in a discussion in Talk:Louis X of France. Three editors were against me in one way or another, including one in the RFC. With the first two, I thought they probably are like-minded editors who know each other for some time. But then the RFC guy showed up and said that the discussion was against me. I was left wondering what I was doing wrong in the discussion.

My main objective in discussions is not to convince but to find the most logical and fair outcome according to Wikipedia guidance. For thatI realizedI usually follow the three upper rungs of the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement pyramid. I know that my way of thinking can be strange or complicated (I was that weird and nerdy kid in school). But I am trying to figure out how to be more effective in my engagements with other editors. If you have the time or the interest, can you point out what positive and negative things you look in that discussion that I did and give me some advice? Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, people just disagree. There is no one, singular Right® way, it is a matter of editorial preference.  If you find that the majority disagree with you, you just accept it and move on.  It doesn't matter that you disagree or why.  Plenty of times I disagree with the consensus/majority, but it is just my life experience, my viewpoint, the way I learned to use the English language.  Not everyone has the same background or preferences.  Once it is clear that you are in the minority, it is best to just thank them for participating, and bow out. Everyone is on minority side of consensus from time to time.
 * If I could offer some advice, it would be to work on being more concise. People are more willing to consider your perspective when you only use one or two paragraphs and keep it simple.  Quoting policy or MOS doesn't really help; people like what they like.  So present the before and after, and keep the "why I like this" down to a sentence or two, in plain English.  Then they are more likely to read everything you wrote, rather than gloss over the extended reasoning and form an opinion prematurely.  The point by point edits did you no favors.  It is also more effective to say why your way is better, rather than focus on why the other way is wrong. Positivity often rules the day.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown This is great advice and reflects what I was getting to realize. Thanks! Thinker78  (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Publicizing an RFC on the DRN
I'm not sure why you wanted to publicize an RFC at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard- but please don't do that. Its not the right place, we are where arguments come when they can't be solved by an RFC. Per the RFC project page you can publicize an RFC in the following places:
 * One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous (The technical forum is almost never an appropriate venue. You may want to ask there before starting an RfC.)
 * Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
 * Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
 * Talk pages of closely related articles or policies

Thank you! Nightenbelle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No thanks
My user page is blank by choice.

Please do not put stuff in there.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Markbassett well, you could help other editors by not leaving it blank. Patrollers think yours is a new account and could save time patrolling someone else. But I won't be delving in this. Have fun. Thinker78  (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Thinker78 ??? How is that patrollers? I’m ignorant on what that would be, not seeing how it would relate to WP:PATROLS or Patrollersm not having seen any actions that would seem of a patroller at me, or even seeing why a new person account would matter to patrollers.  If they are mistaking blank for new and I see something about that, I will tell them that I am not new, but I would have thought there are better tools to indicate new account creation.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Markbassett the issue is that some of us may spend a lot of time checking the watchlist or the recent changes page. We may focus more on accounts with red links, ips, and edit summaries missing or wanting. If experienced editors didn't have red links on their accounts, that would help us save some time. Maybe you would think it's not a big deal, but it adds over time and in a year it can be hours that were spent checking red links of experienced editors. Thinker78  (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a bad get to check me - I am often a muppet, and sometimes WP does not work well with my mobi. Redlink does seem a reasonable indicator of newbie - three out of four of the current redlinks on recent changes are somewhat newbies.  Though I would suggest an alternative of setting the Newcomers filter and excluding logged actions as this would give a larger list of such.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just for information
Since there were multiple mentions about your points by another user I have created a subsection @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault if, as and when you feel to add any points or inputs, you can.

This message is just for information.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification
Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi

201226nick (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

A kitten for you!
😎

201226nick (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Your conflict with ValarianB
I made some suggestions, which ValarianB deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ValarianB&oldid=1114221015

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Praxidicae&oldid=1114221990

And my comments to User:Praxidicae

Have a nice day.

Have another kitten while your at it sir.

😎😎😎 May1787 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Mr. Thinker78, I apologize that this disruption has darkened your doorstep. It has nothing to do with you, or the past disagreement we have had. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

 * @May1787 wow this was quiet unexpected! Thanks! Thinker78  (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I quIEt like you 2. May1787 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey . If you have the time, could you verify if I deserve this barnstar? The editor who was kind enough to give it to me pasted some content of my talk page in theirs and subsequently has been banned for other issues. It would be great if you can check my work.
 * If you disagree with the editor regarding the barnsatar, or if you want regardless to provide me with any advice regarding civility, I am receptive. Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no criteria for barnstars, really. The giver was a sockpuppet, but that doesn't mean he was or wasn't being sincere.  Only you can really determine that. I'm really swamped in the real world, it would take more time than I have to pour through your contribs than I have, sorry.  But civility is something we all try to have, yet we all could probably have more of, as we are all works in progress.  I would say just smile, tip your hat to May, and continue working on being a better, more civil, Wikipedian, like many of us.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

<--''Hi editor. Please add your post above this line'' -->

Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assaul
I filed for the RfC close as you and other editors asked for to proceed with dispute resolution process and moved your comments regarding RfC in a section above but some editors are up with edit-warring with me at every cost. So I would like to ask you if I did right kindly let me know or reinstate my edit because if I reverted I will still be blamed for edit-warring like previously. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk) 13:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @USaamo if I move the comments then I would be somewhat involved in the dispute. If no one does it before me then I will try to close the rfc. It would take me around 5 hours to analyze it, more or less. Thinker78  (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy I am saying this now. If you close the RfC I will challenge immediately as, in my opinion based on the comments you made on the way too lengthy talk page discussion, you are involved. You stated your observations of the RfC even hinting at your opinion and offered sources to back up one sides opinion. The other side in the discussion has quoted you a number of times as being in support of their position which you have not stated to the contrary at any point. Regardless of whether you are or not it does leave room for opposing editors to not have confidence in your potential decision as an objective uninvolved closer. As such I respectfully ask you not to close the RfC. -- A Rose Wolf  18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf I tried just pointing out the relevant policies, without stating one opinion or the other. If I made a favorable or opposing opinion as you state, it would have no longer been neutral. Then I made an opinion regarding the consensus and I did state a personal opinion. But you ignored that I was willing to spend many hours reading and analyzing the consensus to render an impartial opinion. Ok, I will refrain myself from closing it and I consider myself an involved editor in the relevant discussion from now on. Cheers!  Thinker78  (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * your response suggests you don't want this edit dispute to be resolved. Thinker78 in his first response on the said talkpage quoted WP:BLPPUBLIC policy with restraint which I quoted. Later on he only replied to Bookku when he asked him what editors viewed in RfC, even there he didn't state personal opinion. He himself didn't even comment in the RfC and here too he refused me. See Bookku's comment in RfC where he stated that Thinker78 mentioned likely applicable policies without giving opinion. While you have called me disruptive, perhaps you should also look into the position you're taking in this edit dispute. You're making bonafide contributions of someone controversial just because I quoted him whereas I actually quoted the policies he mentioned. USaamo (t@lk) 08:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Mobile block
Hello. For some reason I am blocked in my mobile app, but there is no talk page I can find to see what's the situation. First, my mobile ip address was blocked, then I thought it could have been some dynamic ip issue and I logged on. I was able to edit but today I found myself blocked while logged in my app. I am not blocked in the website. How can I see what's the issue in my app? Help! -- Thinker78  (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the right venue for this. It has nothing to do with blocking policy. Either on your Talk page or perhaps at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found out that in the page Appealing a block I can check if I am indeed blocked in the mobile app by making tests in the sandbox. There is a link there for it, as well as a ticket system that doesn't require talk page access. Thanks Thinker78 for your own help. Thinker78  (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

unethical human experimentation & MKULTRA etc etc.
Hey, thanks for the discussion over at the Tudor Dixon talk page. I just wanted to say here, that I am well aware of the history of unethical human experimentation that has historically been performed and carried out by the US government, military, CIA, etc. I've read several books on the MK Ultra project, and also read a lot (and listened to a number of very in-depth podcasts by journalists like Jeremy Scahill and others) about the more recent covert experimental psychological torture programs that were enacted at some of the black sites during the war in Afghanistan. Very ugly stuff. I also understand that most of the people who have been experimented on were from marginalized populations, and totally get why the black community or why indigenous populations, for example, would be especially cautious about US government sponsored vaccination campaigns. I do totally get people's concerns, I just believe that nowadays it is a LOT more difficult to pull off broad secret programs like this, because there would be a lot of whistleblowers coming from the scientific community (specifically, from scientists within the corporations who have developed these vaccines). Development of the covid-19 vaccines has required research and work of thousands of scientists, so a number of them would have come forward if there were anything seriously wrong going on. I just think that is an inevatibility, that there would have been significant information leaks by this point, because it's incredibly difficult to keep giant evil secret programs a secret for very long, in my opinion. As for RFID chips and technology of that nature, it is just a physical impossibility. RFID chips are the size of a small grain of rice, too big to fit through the narrow metal needle tip that pierces the skin. It would also be detectable after the fact, because the antennae in the chips would have to contain some metal. So, if we were getting chipped, folks would be finding these things and digging them out of their skin, and such a phenomenon would rapidly go viral. Nothing of the sort has happened. This type of technology is still too physically large to be invisibly injected like that, and such ideas of super small nanoscale RFID are still a thing of science fiction. They will no doubt exist someday, but that day is not today. :) Just thought I'd share some of this here, cause I don't want to be going too off-topic on the article talk page or in the RfC. Anyhow, I am with you about the importance of exercising critical thinking and questioning power and authority etc., but also believe that influencers and people with a platform need to especially be careful in what they say, and back it up with solid information, otherwise it can come across as crying wolf or lead to minor catastrophe, by encouraging some groups of people to hate other groups of people, just because they may think about things differently. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the detailed response. I disagree about the whistleblower guarantee. Many times it's difficult for them to come forward for a variety of reasons. You can just see what happened with covid. Some doctors and other professionals in a relevant field tried to have independent critical thinking.
 * At times it happened to be against a government narrative. If they dared to express their informed thoughts publicly, they faced censorship, legal actions, loss of employment, threats, retaliation, and even suspension of their license to practice or jail time. Tech giants enforced censorship and quashed any comment that didn't align with a certain narrative.
 * Now, imagine if there was a major secret project within a government involving powerful agencies and bureacrats. Very few whistleblowers would come forward, if anyone at all. And if anyone came forward they would face ridicule in the news media as conspiracy theorists that shouldn't be believed because of such outlandish claims. Thinker78  (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, time will tell as you said, and the truth will come to light in the coming decades with the benefit of hindsight and temporal distance from the polarized political atmosphere of the moment; especially as more FOIA requests can be filed and reviewed, and official private documents and correspondences made public. I do watch with incredulity what China has been capable of doing, in terms of the crazy crazy strict lockdowns and ability to so stringently control and restrict their population by various mechanisms of repression, it is truly dystopian and terrifying to me. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And certainly the situation in China is horrifying. Thinker78  (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Trout returned, unwarranted, and unaccepted
Your trout has been returned to you, delivery not accepted, seeing as how I almost immediately undid my error, and posted a thoughtful response to the question. Please give trouts to people who actually deserve them. I have deserved them at times in the past, and when that was the case, I accepted them. This time, your trout is entirely unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Your revert was fun. I did notice you noticed your mistake. But I was left pondering about the scene. Reverting. Getting ready to reply to the editor. Getting surprised you didn't find their post. Realizing you removed the post. I had a smile and I just had the humorous incentive to provide you with this seldom-used template. Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Unexpected! Thanks very much @Nemov! Thinker78  (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)