User talk:Tycoon24/Archive 12

Teaparty Protests
I generally agree with your line of reasoning on this article, but it won't do you any good if you're banned indefinitely. Exercise more caution and don't get into editing disputes. Other than that, keep fighting the good fight! EJNOGARB 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... may I ask why--specifically--you feel the need to warn me about nothing in general? Was there a recent edit I made that you personally feel compelled to warn me about - or are you just in the mood to send spam-warnings my way? This is a joke, right? Funny. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling Nancy Pelosi a conspiracy theorist may be a violation of WP:BLP. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When did I add Pelosi being a conspiracy theorist to the article? This is not a new discussion on the Talk Page, which I know you know because you've responded to an earlier discussion about it by saying this:


 * As I've suggested to other editors, if you can achieve consensus on the articles for Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, and Paul Krugman that they are "fringe" or "conspiracy theorists", then you can make a case for removing their comments here. Additionally, Wikipedia is not supposed to be devoid of opinion. It is supposed to neutrally and fairly present mainstream opinions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How is what I wrote any different than a previous users notion that Pelosi is a conspiracy theorist? And how is the mere discussion of it violating any rule or policy of Wikipedia? Tycoon24 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed you're following me, thanks for stopping by! Don't be a stranger. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its important to watch over a user in the hours and days after they come off a block. Need to make sure that they have learned their lessons and are no longer a harm to the project. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 18:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Awe. Thanks. However, I've noticed you following me since waaaaaay long ago. No worries, I enjoy the company. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I only ran into your work at the Tea Parties. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 18:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny, I think I'm addicted to Wikipedia now. I love it. I learn new things every day, how the community works, what's appropriate and what's not. What's more interesting is how perceptively 'polite' some of the arguments can be on political discussions. Those can be some of the more heated topics, but Wikiquette allows for more civil debates, requiring neutrality. Which I think is an excellent part of Wikipedia. However, I was taken back and alarmed when you mentioned on Talk:Tea Party protests this:


 * You are jumping to the assumption that the protestors have a coherent issue, message, or meaning. Most likely it is a collection of racist and republicans (and some racist republicans). Republicans who are upset that they lost the last election, and racists who are upset that now there is a black man in the white house. See how fun playing with words is? 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)


 * Aside from that comment, things have been more or less civil in discussions. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nationwide Chicago Tea Party
I have nominated Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will post comments later on today on the issue. I've got class now! When I get back I'll be happy to clarify my reasons for creating the article and why I believe it should remain. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk Archiving
WP:Archive Hope this helps. Mishlai (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Ideally this would have been provided earlier, but better late than never. Feel free to move if you'd rather have it at the top of your talk page. Mishlai (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mishlai!!! It's been over a year since my first edit on Wikipedia. Mishlai is by far the most helpful, civil Wikipedian that I've ever run into. I cannot thank him enough for everything he's helped me with in the past and will probably help me with in the future. Mishlai rocks! Tycoon24 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My response to your previous rant
The problem here has been your own style of editing - your frustration has been obvious, your bias strong. Your edits haven't been in keeping with policy, but that's understandable in a newcomer. Some of the newcomers attempt to try to work within Wikipedia's systems for providing neutral and credible coverage, and others become too wrapped up in whether their views are represented in the way they wish to acknowledge that the problem is not with everyone else, but with themselves. I - as an editor that you have regarded as relatively neutral - advised you that things were unlikely to go your way because policy simply didn't support your vision of what the article should be.

You could have chosen to pick your battles, but instead you've fought hard in a fight made un-winnable by the simple fact that you were in the wrong - policy wise - and then allowed that very predictable defeat to frustrate you about Wikipedia and it's editors generally. You're personally close to this issue, and inexperienced with editing Wikipedia. These two are a bad combination; they make for poor editing and strong emotional responses. All of this temper-tantrum "fuck wikipedia" ranting does only disservice to you and the credibility of your arguments.

That entire anti-liberal, anti-wikipedia editorial could easily be deleted as wp:soap, but I have not done so (though someone else easily might and would not be in the wrong to do so.) You claim censorship, but it is you who are deleting calm responses. Really, your behavior here is just bad, and that kind of disruption always eventually results in removal from wikipedia, one way or another - unless the editor sees the error of their ways.

I wish you well, and I am glad to see dissent and activism in you because I believe that apathy is a terrible thing. I also believe that the problem here has not been with Wikipedia, but with your approach, and with your unwillingness to put your point of view (we all have one) aside as much as possible while working on an article. I don't know if you still consider me to be neutral in this, but if you do I hope you will take some time off from it, take some deep breaths, and return to contribute to the project with a less combative style. If you don't return to the project, then good fortunes to you wherever you go, and wherever you direct your enthusiasm. I regret that I was not able to be more helpful as a mentor in this. Mishlai (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to your communication in the unblock section - I read it. We can talk more after your block expires.  Just take some time off for now, cool your jets, come back with a fresh approach. I'll talk to you then. Mishlai (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll be away from the internet for all of Friday and the rest of the weekend, so it will in fact be next week before we can resume this discussion. Mishlai (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

AfD nomination of List of Tea Party protests, 2009
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Flash client security
In Adobe_Flash you reverted my revision 553452597 that was removing reference to The Flashback trojan. I removed this reference because it has nothing to do with Flash security. That trojan is masquerading as Flash, but doesn't actually exploit any security vulnerability of the Flash client. Therefore it doesn't belong to that section. If the trojan is notable enough, you could mention it in another section about trojans that are riding on Flash's popularity to own naive users (similar to a phishing attack). Please re-add my change or explain why you disagree. Tsunanet (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out to me first. The Flashback malware spurred many different variants, and my recollection is that different versions used different exploits. This is especially true when comparing the early variants of Flashback to the later variants. Three notable vulnerabilities exploited by variants of Flashback include CVE-2012-0507, CVE-2011-3544 and CVE-2008-5353, which are Java related. However, Flashback made use of the authority of Adobe updates to spread in its early variants, and because of this it is directly related to Flash security.
 * When new Adobe updates are available, in many cases a popup installer will appear telling users to update the software. This is how many people update their software, possibly sometimes without considering that it may be malware. It may also be one of the reasons why security experts, such as Charlie Miller, recommends "not to install Flash," although it's hard to tell from the source referenced in the Flash client security section.
 * The theory that everyone can prevent malware infections with nothing more than "internet common sense" is unfortunately misguided because it takes a piece or two of good advice and bends it beyond reason. (I think we’ve all had a "click-oops" moment that’s caused us to do something we didn’t intend to do.) Even for those who are not a "naive user," you still have not closed all the windows of opportunity for malware such as Flashback to get through. For instance, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft were all hit recently by malware -- which was not a "malvertisement," nor was it a case of double-clicking something they shouldn’t have -- because the forums their developers visited were compromised and malicious code was added. This is a very common scenario, and it’s part of why Flashback was so successful.
 * The problem with those major companies may have been prevented if the developers didn’t have Java installed, but they may need to use Java for work purposes – not everyone is able to disable it, for a variety of possible reasons. Using Adobe Flash or Java when you know about all its vulnerabilities or other security issues doesn’t mean you lack common sense or are a naive user, but it does mean you should be aware of all security issues related to the software. Knowing whether an Adobe Flash update is valid or not is a very real security concern, which is a legitimate reason for discussing it in the Adobe client security section. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Debt check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Debt?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Lighter Capital - conflict of interest? Link additions
Hello Tycoon24, I hope you don't mind me asking but do you have any personal of professional connection to this company? If that's the case, please make sure to read WP:COI regarding editing with a "conflict of interest". This guideline and associated policies like WP:PAID have been reworded much clearer and more restrictive in recent years (see detailed info in links) to avoid promotional or biased editing. A conflict of interest should be disclosed transparently and editors in this situation should not edit affected articles themselves.

Another quick point regardless of a possible conflict of interest: blogs (even expert blogs) are generally not considered reliable sources. See WP:RS for more information about how to identify reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding any further links to the blog at  - it is considered spamming. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks GermanJoe. I was just trying to be helpful and add to a number of pages that appeared to need improvement (most or all of the pages were requesting citations or requests to improve them). I've seen a number of "expert blogs" used as citations throughout Wikipedia, and so didn't realize information from those sources was considered unreliable. I see you helped with some removal of the unreliable citations but may have inadvertently left the unreliable information on the page, so I'm happy to assist with the removal of unreliable info I added from those citations. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edits removing unreliable sources
Hey, I'm totally on board with cleaning up promotional, blog-spammy sources from Wikipedia, and applaud the work you've been doing in that area, but just wanted to give you a heads up that I noticed a small number of cases where your edits left a claim unsourced: In cases like this, I'd suggest doing one of the following (depending on the context): tagging the source with Better source instead of removing it, or adding a Citation needed to the unsourced sentence, or removing the sentence along with the source. Cheers. Colin M (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=884688573
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reddit&diff=prev&oldid=884656291
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skateboarding&diff=prev&oldid=884688812
 * Good suggestion, Colin M. I will be sure to do that! What I’ve been told by other admins is that editors do not necessarily need to add that when removing promotional sources or blog spam, but I definitely agree that the polite and/or helpful thing to do would be replace it with a Citation needed needed tag. I’ll start doing that, where appropriate. Best regards. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, I sort of wish I could be part of a “movement,” per say, to create a new Wikipedia rule that requires removing information along with a source that was identified as promotional or spam. Personally, I believe not doing so can be considered a form of plagarism, because it means Wikipedia is taking information from a source it deems as spam or promotional yet not citing the source where the information came from. I see it as essentially a loophole to steal information from sources whilst not requiring it be sourced. Unfortunate, as is, Wikipedia does not have a policy to enforce plagarism standards and in fact promotes it by allowing the removal of only the source from which the information was obtained. I’m just not sure how to go about trying to get this new rule in place. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, some of your deletions are leaving orphaned in line citations. Incidentally, blogs are not necessarily unreliable. Many come from credible authors. So, identifying what is actually "spam" requires careful examination. for instance you just deleted a source from Amnesty International, which is hardly spam. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  15:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael Goodyear, I appreciate your input. Would you mind pointing me to where Wikipedia discusses which blogs may be considered reliable vs. the ones that aren’t? Quite honestly, I agree with you that there are many expert blogs that should be considered reliable, but I haven’t seen where Wikipedia outlines the rules on that. From what I have been told, Wikipedia prefers only peer reviewed research, or, weirdly, mainstream media stories that cover a certain topic (on the odd assumption that a journalist is somehow more reliable than an expert discussing on the topic via a blog). If you ask me, all publications — mainstream or expert blogs — are making money in some way to finance the ability to post high quality information, so allowing one and not the other (even if a blog is accurate and reliable) is not the best approach. But it seems to be the rule of law here on wikipedia, unless I’m missing something. Tycoon24 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * furthermore, Amnesty International is, unfortunately, a blog and by Wikipedia’s standards is not considered reliable. See WP:RS. Even expert blogs are typically not considered reliable, partly due to WP:NEUTRAL. Tycoon24 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this whole area is rather a grey area that requires a lot of judgement, rather than rigid rules. Much of WP editorial policy is strictly guidance, this is not a publishing house, for better or worse. So I doubt there is a WP page that answers your question - but given the enormous number of pages on style nothing would surprise me. Bottom line is that blogs can be useful, as can other materials, used judiciously. They also have advantages of accessibility and verifiability. You are not the first person I have had this discussion with. Case in point - I am just about to cite a blog. The author is an expert but her book on the subject is not very accessible. On the other hand her blog that covers much of the material, is. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your approach, Michael Goodyear. Based on feedback I’m getting from everyone commenting on this thread, I’m getting the notion that most editors find some blogs and/or press releases noteworthy, but using good judgement on the material being referenced is important. (Some editors or admins appear more stringent in their decisions, while others use more broad judgments when considering noteworthy sources.) I too find it particularly challenging to access experts’ books on a topic, but if they cover similar material on a blog, I would consider that a reliable source. That does bring up a question you might be able to help me with - how do you quantify who is an expert vs. who is an unreliable blogger? Does an “expert” have to already have a Wikipedia page about them? Or can an expert be someone who can be verified as having been involved in a particular industry for many years? And how do you verify that if they don’t have a Wikipedia page about them? And what sources are reliable to use as a way to prove their expertise? For instance, as an example, could a lawyer who’s been involved in a particular industry for some time, and has his or her own blog, be considered noteworthy for citation if discussing a topic they have 20 years experience in? Tycoon24 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I definitely would not use having a WP page as a criterion! Although if they do have one, that helps. It comes down to knowing the subject you are writing about. If unsure, research the person concerned - what is their connection with the subject matter? What have they written on this or related matters? Do they have a relevant teaching or administrative position? Are they cited by other authors (Google Scholar helpful here), Is their view on the topic consistent with other authors? A caveat - beware bloggers who use WP as a source! Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I was just curious how others (including yourself) base their good judgements on who can be considered an expert on a subject matter. For example, I saw you re-added a blog citation here, which was written by a blogger that I can't seem to find them as a noteworthy scholar. Medium, much like wordpress blogs, is a social blogging platform that allows anyone to write a story and get paid for it. Can you explain what makes Thomas Coombes a reliable author on the topic? Tycoon24 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not Michael, but I agree with his point, and will try to answer the question. A big part of whether a blog can be considered a reliable source is who the author is, and what the claim is we're trying to source. A blog (or tweet) written by person X where they state Y may be used to source a claim like "X has said Y", per WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:PRIMARY, and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Another policy describing when blogs may be allowed is WP:BLOGS, which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
 * For example, I think this source you removed should have been allowed to stand, per WP:ABOUTSELF. It was an official HBO blog post/press release announcing a show being renewed, and was used to source the claim "On 30 August 2018, HBO announced that Tracey Ullman's Show would return for a third season". Colin M (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Colin, that sounds a lot like a violation of the WP:PROMOTION rules. For instance, this edit you made was to remove a press release for the same reason I removed HBOs press release. You were the editor who actually made me aware promotional press releases are not allowed, so now I’m a bit confused by this rule. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may have me confused with someone else - that edit was by User:GermanJoe, not me. My guess would be that his reason for making that edit was not that he doubted the factuality of the information (that "In January 2019, Silicon Valley Bank announced a partnership with Lighter Capital..."). Rather, I think he thought it wasn't noteworthy (in an earlier revert, he described it as an "irrelevant announcement"). I also see a bit of a promotional tone to the wording ("to better serve early stage tech companies seeking online access to debt capital and banking services"). If the partnership had been covered in an independent source (not a press release), that might have spoken to its noteworthiness. One could try to make the same argument about the HBO edit above, but I think a fact like "her show was renewed for another season" is more self-evidently noteworthy than something like two companies "announcing a partnership", which has pretty vague implications. Unfortunately, the policy isn't as simple as "press releases are never allowed", or "press releases are always just as good as any other source" - it really depends on context. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops. I definitely got the wrong person on that edit. Sorry for the confusion, Colin M! You made an interesting point about the promotional tone vs. noteworthy tone. It is confusing and subject to individual opinion, it seems, because a press release by nature is promotional. In HBO's case, they were promoting the announcement that an HBO "show was renewed for another season"; in Silicon Valley Bank's case, they were promoting the announcement of a partnership "to better serve early stage tech companies..." The point I'm making is that both announcements serve to benefit the company issuing the press release - both are noteworthy to the target audience, but both also seem to fall under promotional information. Does that make sense? Tycoon24 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the only point we disagree on here is this one: both are noteworthy to the target audience. I'm not very familiar with Silicon Valley Bank or their announced partnership, but I would say that, in general, a company announcing a partnership with another company is not inherently noteworthy. i.e. it's not clear to me that this is an important thing to know if I want to know about Silicon Valley Bank. For all I know, maybe they announce new "partnerships" with companies every week and they're mostly just for PR. On the other hand, if they announced that they had been acquired by X, or that they were declaring bankruptcy, or doing an IPO or something, I would accept that those are noteworthy events for any company. It's not really about "noteworthy tone" vs. "promotional tone", but about whether the event being reported is inherently interesting or important. e.g. even if they released a really fluffy press release saying "To better serve our beloved customers, we are merging with the excellent Raccoon Bank. This will allow us to offer the best banking service in the whole world at the lowest prices..." - I would still use that to source a (non-promotional) statement in the article saying "In 2019, Silicon Valley Bank announced a merger with Raccoon Bank".
 * Similarly, in the context of reading about a T.V. show, it being renewed for another season is an inherently noteworthy event. But if they put out a press release saying their viewership went up 1%, or announcing that the show was nominated for best sound design by the Decatur County Television Awards, I would be skeptical that this would be worth mentioning in the article (unless also covered by independent sources). Colin M (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's still "promotional," by definition, to announce renewing a TV series. The only reason to announce it via a press release is to inform a target audience, to let them know, in hopes of gaining more viewership. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, from what I understood about the Silicon Valley Bank press release was that they were announcing a partnership to expand offerings that the bank otherwise couldn't provide. I may be incorrect, but that's the gist of what I got from the press release. It's all about target audience. For HBO, I get it: their target audience needed to know about a TV series being renewed. For Silicon Valley Bank, they want their target audience to know about additional offerings they can provide due to a new partnership. Press releases are promotional, every single one of them. In my opinion, both are noteworthy. But does Wikipedia think so? It seems not, because press releases are promotional by nature. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Note to self
Vote again here when round 3 begins, March 18. :) Tycoon24 (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Alt-right" category
This whole part of the article basically makes it make sense to have that category along with "Far-right politics in New Zealand":

"Security officials suspect he had come into contact with far-right organisations about two years before the shooting while visiting European nations.[38]

Police Commissioner Mike Bush initially said that three men and one woman had been arrested in connection with the attacks at the two mosques.[39][40] All four were said to hold extremist views, but this has been confirmed about only one of them.[41][42] One of the suspects was earlier reported as having been wearing explosives. However, Bush refuted this. He also denied initial reports of a shooting at the Christchurch Hospital.[43][44] Officials believe no other suspects were involved.[45] The police later said one of the reported suspects had no relation to the attacks and was revealed to be a member of the public with a firearm who was trying to help police.[46] Only one suspect is charged with murder, while the roles of the other two suspects are still being determined.[47]

Before the shooting, Tarrant posted a link to an 87-page manifesto titled "The Great Replacement" (a reference to the white genocide conspiracy theory and its French variant) on the imageboard 8chan outlining his attack.[48][49][17][50][51] The manifesto says he began planning an attack two years earlier and chose the Christchurch location three months earlier.[52] In the manifesto he describes himself as previously a "communist", an "anarchist", a "libertarian", but then turned to "racist", and "eco-fascist" concerned with global warming.[53][54][55] The manifesto expresses several anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments including hate speech against migrants, white supremacist rhetoric, and calls for Muslims "invading his land" to be killed primarily to "preserve the white race".[15][56][16] The manifesto includes references to high-profile right-wing figures and Internet memes[57] and encourages people online to agree with the shooting and to create more memes.[11] These elements, along with the live streaming video, in which its viewers had cheered the attack on, gave the appearance that the attack was influenced by trolling, designed to create disagreements and anger between different groups, which is further supported by his reasoning for his choice of weapon, which was to violently escalate the American gun control debate.[58][59][60] Tarrant signed off the manifesto with the phrase, "Goodbye, god bless you all and I will see you in Valhalla." In Norse mythology, Valhalla is a giant hall akin to a heaven in which half of those who die in combat end up.[50]

In his manifesto, Tarrant said he was an "actual fascist" akin to Sir Oswald Mosley, and has called for the targeting of Sadiq Khan, Angela Merkel and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.[61][62] Tarrant professed that he was a member of the "reborn Knights Templar", believer in Donald Trump "as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose" but not as a leader or policymaker,[50] and a "kebab removalist", in reference to a meme on the Internet regarding the genocide by the Bosnian Serb army against Bosnian Muslims.[11][16] In the manifesto the Kosovo conflict between Albanians and Serbs is mentioned and the gunman calls for a weakened USA to prevent it from any future situation to intervene or side with Muslims against Christian Europeans trying to remove "Islamic occupiers from Europe".[15][14] The gunman stated in his manifesto that he was inspired by a similar shooting in 2011 done by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.[14] Motivations for the attack are mentioned in the manifesto such as revenge for European civilians who were casualties in Islamic terrorist attacks within Europe.[49] In particular, the writer repeatedly mentions Ebba Åkerlund, a victim in the 2017 Stockholm truck attack.[49] The guns used were covered in white writing that named historical events, people, and motifs related to historical conflicts, wars, and battles between Muslims and non-Muslims.[10][note 2]"

SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Although I disagree, at this point in time the only sources that seem to stick in the article allege that he is right-wing. So I until the whole story gets reported, I’m fine it with staying. Appreciate your input. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Disinformation and misuse of sources
You have at least twice added content to Christchurch mosque shootings that has not been supported by your cited sources. You have also added unsourced claims that this is an "environmentalist" or "left-wing fascist" attack which is contrary to the reports in reliable sources. If you continue to insert unsupported claims or misrepresent sources, you will be blocked from editing. Prolog (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You must not be reading the sources I've attributed to those statements. Stop removing facts because you don't like to read them. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Time will be my ally. You can bitch and moan all you want, but I'm patient and will wait for even more reliable sources to mention the facts that I added to the article before re-adding those facts that you seem to disagree with based on your opinion. Reliable sources are on my side. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem very confident that the "facts" will back up your point of view. A truly open-minded editor would not already formed ideas about what the "facts" are and realize that the facts are often in contradiction to ones personal beliefs. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering my confidence is coming directly from a reliable source, yup. The “facts” you seem to only allow are those in which you agree with. Whatevs. I’ll wait for other sources to report the full story before re-adding the facts, and in the meantime let the article remain the journalist sensationalized news style soapbox that it currently is. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Donald Trump, 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. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 15:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks MrX, I was trying to add the citation before you undid the edit. I’ll re-add it with this citation: “...the attorney general stressed that Mueller found no evidence that Americans, including the president or anyone associated with his campaign, “conspired or coordinated” with Russia. He noted that, as the president “said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion” with Moscow’s attempts to interfere in the election.” Tycoon24 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But you didn't attribute it to the attorney general. You wrote it as if it were a widely-accepted fact, which violates WP:WIKIVOICE.- MrX 🖋 15:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, when I have some free time I’ll add a better statement with attribution to the attorney general, with two sources including the above and this one: Tycoon24 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. Looks like it’s not needed as the no longer relevant info was removed from his bio. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saudi Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beheaded ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Saudi_Arabia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Saudi_Arabia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)