User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:16, 29 January 2018

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

ToolBox, Traffic stats, Watchlists, Source bin, T&T, Hamsterpoop, Templates, Interaction, Dossier contents, OWL, Yadkard, {{uw-3rr}}

A basic citation template I like to use. See this citation tool: Yadkard

<ref name=" ">{{cite web | last1= | first1= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | accessdate= }}</ref>

I like to choose a ref name which will remain unique, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date. Here's how it works:

<ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=The Guardian | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017}}</ref>^[1]

^ Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.


Wikipedia ads	file info – #24

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32

Offered for your grokking

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I respect you and your candor.

Due to article talk page restrictions, my position is grossly misinterpreted by all there.

Given your last (hatted) offering there, allow me to offer: What I’m stumped by is why much of the Left-Liberal-Progressive camp is carrying water for the MIC. Humanengr (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the term "carrying water for". It was used the other day about the GOP leadership: "It's pretty clear that Grassley and Graham are interested in carrying water for the White House."[1] But MIC? What's that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same language, different framings. For the moment, can we recede Trump into the background, to the point of ignoring what he did and considering him only as an object of investigation?

With me so far? [We come from very similar political orientations; I just need to ask you to set aside some assumptions.] Humanengr (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your first question ("With me...?") Is that in response to something? On my talk page you can feel free to be verbose, IOW speak more plainly and fully. I won't mind at all. I don't want to guess. This is a safe zone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! It just dawned on me that you meant "Are you with me so far?" I must have been tired. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The q was re if you’re willing, for sake of discussion, to set issues of Trump’s actions aside and focus only on his being an object of investigation. (In your hatted comment on the article talk page, you focused on the former.) Will write more below. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry — missed your q re MIC = Military-Industrial Complex. Humanengr (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! My mind went to Men In Coats for some odd reason, but I couldn't be sure. I have no special fondness for the death industry (the entire weapons industry, civilian and military).[2] Only one member of my family has served in the military, as a photographer in Vietnam. Otherwise I respect our soldiers. Their work is important, but I feel they are often misused in the service of political/financial interests. Our wars aren't always as altruistic and concentrated on spreading democracy and defending the oppressed as we'd like to think. The MIC has an agenda that is often suspect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had to look up Men in Coats. (Not much of a tv watcher.) One more q for context-setting: I take it you’re familiar with Neoliberalism and have thoughts on that? Humanengr (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go now, but I'm not even familiar with Men In Coats, and, although I'm familiar with the concept of Neoliberalism, haven't delved into it. Not quite sure where I am in that regard. I'm rather a complex mixture. Otherwise I'm totally open for friendly sharing and discussion, so go for it. I'll be eagerly waiting to see what you have written when I get back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx — Note 6 on the Neoliberalism page ends with a quick partial summary: “In its simplest version, it reads: markets good, government bad." Philip Mirowski, cited in note 23, has an excellent history and critique in his More Heat than Light book. I’ll refer to it by Mirowski’s handle ‘NTC’ for Neoliberal Thought Collective’.

Without delving further into the mechanics of the NTC, I’ll start with a simple summary statement that the NTC and the MIC (and their comrades, the neocons) set the context for domestic and foreign affairs. It’s a little more complex than that, but that’s enough to set the stage for my next question:

Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Humanengr (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really comfortable discussing in the context of those boxes, probably because I don't fit in any one box, and I don't completely understand them because I haven't studied each school of thought. I do know pretty well where I stand on the left/right spectrum (solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah).

I believe that no one who works full time should be paid less than a lower middle class income, thus disqualifying them for welfare. Employers should not be allowed to underpay workers, forcing them to use welfare (an increased financial burden for society), while keeping too much of the profits for themselves. At the same time, these wealthy people tend to use loopholes unavailable to ordinary people, pay less in taxes, and hide income in offshore accounts, and thus they are playing the "tough capitalism for the poor and middle class, and socialist welfare for themselves).

It's too expensive for the economy when hard working people have to work 2-3 jobs, have no leisure time or vacation, and still can't even afford to participate in society and be contributing members of society (in a financial sense). They are barely surviving, and they aren't lazy. They don't want to be carried by others through dependence on welfare, but they have no choice. If the bottom income was higher, very few would be on welfare, and most people would be pumping their money into a thriving capitalist economy. The greedy 0.001% are who are harming America, and they should be stopped. The only reason we can't do this in America is a lack of will to do it. We can certainly afford it.

My personal preference is Social Democracy, as seen in Scandinavia and some other European countries, all with mixed market capitalist economies. I'm a strong believer in social justice as espoused by John Rawls (and many others).

I'm 66 and have lived in six countries: right-wing military dictatorship (S. Korea); right-wing civilian faux "democracy" dictatorship (Philippines), with both supported by the USA; American vulture capitalist democracy; Danish Social Democracy; and Greenland socialism to the point where my business was nationalized. Therefore my political views are based on actually living in these systems and seeing their strengths and weaknesses. The Danish Social Democracy works the best and is the most just.

I don't know if all that helps, but it at least lets you know where I'm coming from, and all without mentioning "he who must not be named"

. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx very much for that discursive exposition and as part of that, your personal foreign survey; and also for your article talk page comment re Himes. There are some issues I could pursue in isolation here on the former, but think they can all be addressed under the neolib-neocon framing, so I’ll elaborate that a bit more. (We’re of the same age cohort, as I had guessed, and share some perspective; you certainly have more in-depth personal experience with those foreign systems.)

In effect, neolibs promote wealth concentration (and exogenize costs) and neocons support that by appropriating foreign resources, all with palatable rubrics like ‘invisible hand’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’.

Does that make sense? (I’m trying to stay focused on my last question: “Which domestic constituencies …?”; so I might need to say a bit more. I’m not meaning to make you ‘guess’, as you said above, but think things generally work better in concise bytes. :) ) Humanengr (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can safely add this re your “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it”: Concentration of wealth or, more properly, concentration of access to power — is an avenue as you appropriately noted that is unavailable to the rest of us.

The problem is without that access, movements grounded in terms of “will to do it” and “We can certainly afford it” are doomed. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thx for your identification as “solid left liberal, right fiscal conservative, conservative Constitutionalist, rule of law, blah, blah”. I can speak to each of those in the context of the neolib-neocon framing as well. I also appreciate the clarity of your exposition and found myself highlighting key terms in each of your sentences that can be similarly addressed in terms of that framing,

But for now, I want to stay focused on the question: Which domestic constituencies do you think have benefitted and will benefit the most from pressure on Trump? Or in more elaborate form, what does anyone who has any ostensibly leftist proclivities think they have, are, or will accomplish with this that has not been, is not, and will not be self-defeating to their professed interests, domestically or internationally? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t mean to stump you. On another point, to clarify, does “conservative Constitutionalist” mean you approve the Citizens United decision? Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a poor decision which undermines the strength of the individual. It gives too much power to wealthy individuals by allowing one person who owns a corporation to use their wealth to outspend individual citizens. One person shouldn't have more rights than another.

Another area where I'm a Constitutionalist is a firm belief in the Separation of church and state. Don't even get me started on gun control, where I believe that the NRA is misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment for profit and ignoring safety issues. The Constitution is open to some interpretation and common sense, and that's how the courts have interpreted it. The idea that individual gun ownership can't be modified in some ways is a relatively modern idea. The 2nd Amendment right is met if an individual in sound mind and not a criminal can own one single-shot gun and some ammo. That bare-bones interpretation is all that's guaranteed. I'm personally in favor of a few guns with limited magazine size, not huge collections and military style weapons. I used to hunt in Greenland (I lived there) and managed just fine with the limitation of no semi-autos and no larger than a five-shot chamber. You can read my article Reindeer hunting in Greenland. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree re Citizens United. Using my language above, it effectively promotes concentration of wealth by granting wealthy individuals privileged access to power. Does that phrasing make sense to you? Humanengr (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. America should be a classless society with equal rights and equal political representation for all. When power and wealth corrupt the political process, we are doomed. Currently we're headed for a (effectively) one-party kleptocratic plutocracy like Russia's, and it's being done very quickly and deliberately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding lights for that move toward kleptocratic plutocracy (I love that phrasing) is provided by the neolibs. And direction-setting for the agenda of foreign ‘intervention’ you termed ‘suspect’ is set by the neocons. Together, by promoting ‘Corporate personhood’, ‘spreading democracy’, ‘national security’, etc., they grow more and more powerful. Does that now start to make sense as a framing? Humanengr (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit unsure, but that makes Trump a neocon and neolib. I'm not sure about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is very helpful. Now — think back before the election. (No, I’m not Svengali.) Would you have thought of Trump as neocon then? Humanengr (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on Russia, per this summary of Trump’s policy pledges, #8:

Trump has promised to improve ties with Putin after a frosty relationship with the Obama administration …

Do you detect a change since then? Humanengr (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., Under Trump, U.S.-Russian Relations Hit New Low from foreignpolicy.com in July. Does that comport with your sense of a change? I’m not asking if it’s good or bad or right or wrong, just whether you take that as a fair characterization of the change. Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see them as mixed signals from a fluctuating relationship, and as a reflection of the secret relationship between Trump and Putin, and it's intersection with the public, national, relationship between the two countries, and the two of them "keeping up appearances" as the leaders of somewhat unfriendly countries.

Their secret relationship is complex due to many alleged factors in the Trump-Russia relationship going back over at least eight years. I have a long list, but due to BLP concerns won't list them here, though they are all from RS. There are alleged illegal deals made, agreements not fulfilled, crimes covered up, and embarrassment over the conspiracy becoming public.

Putin's support for Trump has therefore waxed and waned, including nearly trying to get Trump to drop out of the presidential race. The existence of unfulfilled agreements and public embarrassments creates tension in the relationship. We're seeing that. Publicly they both have to play the game and not get embarrassed in front of their own people. The whole thing makes one sick of politics. It's often dirty business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the U.S. benefits the most from increased tension between U.S. and Russia? Humanengr (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people try to hide Breitbart's right-wing status?

I find it odd that people are ashamed of and try to hide what Breitbart is proud of. They are openly right-wing and are rabidly against anything left-wing. (That last part is a big clue about their orientation and place on the left/right political spectrum.) Why hide it?

There is a long distance from center to Nazis and KKK. Very few right-wingers go that far. They are are just a bit more extreme right-wing than Breitbart, but close enough that they love Breitbart because it carries water for them. Bannon and Breitbart (deceased) are very racist and anti-Muslim. Only 3% got their news from Breitbart in 10/21/14. That's extreme right-wing and very far from center. Only a few outlets are more extreme, among them Hannity, Beck, and Infowars. Now that we have a racist president who likes Fox News, Breitbart, and Infowars, I suspect that the number of clueless people who use those sources has increased. That's really sad.

No wonder research has shown that Trump spews out more misinformation than actual fake news sources:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing.

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Emphasis added.)

BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the regular disputes at Jared Taylor, my impression is that the extreme right pushes very hard against being labeled for what they are. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They sure don't hold back from labeling the left and liberals as "left-wing", which they are. I'm proud of the label. It puts me in good company with JFK, MLK, etc.

I suspect we're dealing with people who don't really understand the historic French origins of the left-right labels, and where they are really placed on that spectrum. They think that it's desirable to be neutral and center, and therefore, seeing themselves as ideal persons, identify themselves as such, when they are actually on the fringes of the left-wing or right-wing.

Many of them know that being fringe and extreme is not good, and that the public looks down on such people, and don't see themselves that way, even though they are. Everyone naturally wants to see themselves as good, balanced, and intelligent. Well, people of that type tend to stay fairly close to either side of center, and tend to avoid getting too extreme. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about copyright violation (link to the dossier)

Hi, BullRangifer. I see that you deleted a link to the Trump-Russia dossier that was in the "External links" section of the Trump–Russia dossier article. You explained "We can use it as an internal source with secondary sources, but WP:COPYVIOEL forbids its use as an External link due to copyright issues. WE)"

BullRangifer, I had read your comment in Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier/Archive_1#The_document where you said:

"I agree. It is NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source. So we should link to it, and link to a hosting site which is known as a RS, IOW a stable site. This link was "Contributed by: Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed," (he is a Pulitzer-prize winner), and this is the "Related Article". It's great because we can view it in three different versions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

So, you later changed your mind? Mksword (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. It is still NEVER a copyright violation to link to a source, but I had forgotten about the rules for External links, which forbid linking to such sites. We apparently don't want to support sites which violate copyright.

We can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL, and even then with care because it's the primary source. We can even quote the dossier in smaller bits under fair use, especially if we do it while quoting a secondary source which is quoting it. We can also paraphrase carefully. Right now we use the actual link only once, right in the lead. There are abundant secondary sources which have the same content and we can link to their articles. Most of them have the content in small bits covered by "fair use".

There are also BLP issues, so when using names we must be using secondary RS which use the names, and sometimes attributing the source. Denials of allegations should also be included, and that the allegations are just that, it should be repeated often. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer: You say that we can still use the link in the body of the article, but not as an EL. I don't know what you mean by "not as an EL". Mksword (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EL=External link: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.[3] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

We don't actually know if BuzzFeed is violating copyright by having the dossier hosted, but we're being extra careful. Neither Fusion GPS, Orbis, or Steele have made any copyright claim or sued BuzzFeed for copyright infringement. Not even a hint in that direction. Regardless, myriad RS do quote passages from the dossier, and we can then quote it when we are citing them as secondary sources. That's my understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Mksword (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BullRangifer. Are you going to place your draft into main space? To me it looks fine, either as a section of main page on the subject or as an independent page. Speaking about linking, there are two things here, if I understand correctly. (a) On can make links to sites like YouTube, but it is important to make sure that specific link you used did not lead to YouTube record that was a copyright violation. (b) links "to generally avoid" can be used in certain cases, i.e. if they help to improve a page, but there are no better links available. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to use it as a replacement for the current Contents section. I have brought over pretty much everything there, developed much more, and used better sources. I want to be very careful about copyright, and have kept within fair use limits. I also use secondary sources. If a secondary source engages in interpretation, then I have sought to attribute the comment, but if it's straight documentation, then attribution is unnecessary. If you see anything that could be problematic, please let me know on the talk page there. I won't dump it into the article without have others check it out. My aim is to strictly document the main allegations which have been commented on by multiple secondary RS. Some allegations have been completely ignored, so I have also ignored them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think merging this to main page would be fine. Also, this is good point that certain claims should not be included if they were not mentioned in secondary RS. Otherwise, they might be regarded as WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or more likely OR. We are allowed to use a primary source within limits, but normally it must be because secondary/tertiary sources have commented on it. Then we can use both the secondary and the primary source. What we are not allowed to do is cherry pick whatever we want from primary sources, if it has been ignored by secondary ones. That's OR. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree - as described in policy. And that is obviously important, I agree. In historical context, I am thinking about the case of Urho Kekkonen - see here, but he was obviously an entirely different person, and according to some historians he was actually the one who used his KGB contacts to advantage of Finland. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, feel free to comment and provide suggestions for improvement there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've visited Finland. What's that about? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a Finnish president who was officially listed by KGB as their agent and actually met his KGB curators. He put phrases in his speeches which were sent to him from the Soviet Politbureau, and he was actually sending back to the Soviet Union people who tried to escape to Finland. But he did it (according to some historian) to advantage of Finland which was dependent from the SU in many aspects. Sorry, this is not something we can discuss in detail here. 141.213.168.110 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trump–Russia dossier allegations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump–Russia dossier allegations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BR! Just a thought: I hope you have kept a copy of the allegations article someplace where you can work on it. Partly because it needs a lot more work; the information is very incomplete with most of the items missing their subsections of commentary. But mostly so that your hard work will not be lost if the AfD results in delete. Because if that happens we are going to want to put most of the information into the main article. Maybe gradually, maybe as a whole, maybe under s hide/show button, but we need to include this kind of detail in some format. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've thought of that. Right now the "keeps" lead the pack by far, and some of the "deletes" use totally spurious arguments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was me I'd keep a copy somewhere anyhow. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done

-- BullRangifer (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courteous reminder of Civility restrictions

The AfD for Trump–Russia dossier allegations is subject to DS which includes a Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This was a PA - it was uncivil and unwarranted. Please mind your manners. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refactor it to sum up the necessary details. Do keep in mind that you have been attacking me for some time. Karma? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that your emphasis on these Trump-related subjects is constantly negative, rather than actual editing to improve and add content. That's going to create a negative atmosphere which irritates people, and it makes you the focus of their attention. That's not good for you or anyone.

I suspect you can create good content. Why not do that? POV warriors rarely find peace here. Been there and done that.

You may not have noticed, but some editors have made some very specific criticisms of both articles, and I have sought to accept their criticisms and actually fix the problems. I respond well to constructive criticism that is specific. That can be fixed.

Vague and broad personal attacks with policy flag waving, as you have done, is unhelpful. It can't be fixed. There is no specific target. Be specific, and in a collaborative way. We're supposed to be on the same side here.

You might even like what I've written about the editorial negotiating table: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content#Editorial neutrality. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BR, if you're going to accuse me of PA, please provide the diffs. I strongly advise you to stop doing what you're doing - I have no agenda - perhaps you should review my user page. I didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday, and I do know PAGs quite well. It is very unbecoming of you to behave combatively constantly casting aspersions against me - it is not conducive to a collegial environment. Again, provide the diffs that support your egregious claims about me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for this your violation of the civility restriction currently in effect by making this edit, an action which completely contradicts your allusion to discontinuing your admittedly previous uncivil actions. As you were unquestionably aware of the civility restrictions on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

[Harding_11/15/2017-1] Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017.

[1]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 :: You might even like what I've written about the editorial negotiating table: [[WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content#Editorial neutrality]]. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 :::BR, if you're going to accuse me of PA, please provide the diffs. I strongly advise you to stop doing what you're doing - I have no agenda - perhaps you should review my user page. I didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday, and I do know PAGs quite well. It is very unbecoming of you to behave combatively constantly casting aspersions against me - it is not conducive to a collegial environment. Again, provide the diffs that support your egregious claims about me. <sup>[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 02:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
+== January 2018 ==
+<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision&nbsp;and for this your violation of the civility restriction currently in effect by making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier_allegations&diff=822744650&oldid=822740363 this edit], an action which completely contradicts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=prev&oldid=822684335 your allusion to discontinuing] your admittedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier_allegations&diff=822677380&oldid=822672808 previous uncivil actions]. As you were unquestionably [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=822683443&oldid=822551360 aware] of the [[WP:EDR|civility restrictions]]&nbsp;on the page [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations]], you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the &#91;&#91;WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard&#93;&#93; or &#91;&#91;WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard&#93;&#93;. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/Coffee|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.&nbsp;<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->