User talk:GorillaWarfare

Archives

August 2020 – present January 2020 – July 2020 April 2019 – December 2019 August 2018 – March 2019 January 2018 – July 2018 July 2017 – December 2017 October 2016 – June 2017 August 2015 – September 2016 August 2014 – July 2015 August 2013 – July 2014 November 2012 – July 2013 April 2012 – October 2012 November 2011 – March 2012 April 2011 – October 2011 December 2010 – March 2011 September 2010 – November 2010 April 2010 – August 2010 November 2009 – March 2010

With regard to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Front&oldid=985806318, I was trying to capture the part of the Buzzfeed article that identifies tension/potential conflict between Patriot Front and other extremist groups. The point wasn't really about Patriot Front's position on BLM, but I thought that context was necessary in order to quote the relevant part of the article about the Boogaloo Boys and The Proud Boys. I didn't think it was misleading, but I think I understand your point. Is there a different way I make the entry?

Best, Jastighe (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to craft an entry that cites the part of the article that discusses tension between Patriot Front and extremist groups. This time, I'll just leave out the BLM reference.

Jastighe (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part of your edit mentioning the Proud Boys seems fine, it was mostly the comment about how they feel about boogaloo boys that was misleading. Sorry for the delay in replying—I think someone else left a message on my talk page after yours and I missed your original message. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Larry Sanger is trying to direct them to Talk:Hunter Biden from his twitter page:

1. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1322014326740426752
2. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1322008938871742464

In fact, his whole twitter feed the past couple days is 90% or more falsehoods about this topic. I am not sure what sort of warning is appropriate for this but I think it is relevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Huh. You wouldn't know he'd done that, looking at Talk:Hunter Biden. I suppose the semi-protection has helped with any potential brigading that would've resulted from it, though the tweets don't seem to have gotten a ton of engagement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him on Twitter why he had gone over to the dark side and I was promptly blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I noticed it because I tried to look up what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Theschulman was ranting about at Talk:Proud Boys and it turned out to be the same person I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tvaughan1 ranting about last week. That led me to the cesspit that is Sanger's twitter, where Sanger is now making baseless claims that "the laptop" contained illegal material involving minors. I think this should be cause for serious concern for some time. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1320174215576903680 IHateAccounts (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yeah, I've been blocked for a while now too...

@IHateAccounts: Larry's comments about Wikipedia's "bias against conservatives" and all that has certainly given ammo to those pushing a conservative/right-wing POV, though since none of it is based in policy it doesn't really get them very far. I would certainly say his behavior is concerning, probably especially to some who are close to him (I certainly never was) but there's not much to be done about it on-wiki if that's what you mean. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I was wondering if there is a note that can be left on the top of the talk page, or included in the FAQ, acknowledging that a bad actor offsite has been directing people to that page. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Ohh, got it. Probably not worth doing—if his comments were gaining major traction, maybe, but there are tweets from random people about the Hunter Biden Wikipedia page that have gained way more attention than his (and such tweets are common about any given controversial page, and not something we usually warn about on talk pages). If he was actively encouraging participation in an RfC on the page, {{notaballot}} could be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how this can happen: 12 hours after you configured pending changes settings for J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of persistent vandalism, it was vandalized again by a new IP user (who has consequently been blocked for an odd time). Please feel free to reply by e-mail if you don't want to discuss this here. ◅ Sebastian 03:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought; I may just be misunderstanding the history. Maybe the changes were still pending, and it's just not displayed as such in the history. ◅ Sebastian 03:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Yep, if you click in to the diff, you'll see it was only ever a pending revision. When someone rolls back a pending change that was never accepted, it doesn't really look that different in the page history and so can be confusing at a glance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ◅ Sebastian 22:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GorillaWarfare:, @JzG:, I just removed a section from Talk:Joe Biden that I think clearly went WAY beyond the bounds of WP:BLP policy after starting from a WP:NOTFORUM violating rant anyways. Here is the relevant edit that I think went way beyond. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJoe_Biden&type=revision&diff=986323494&oldid=986289444 IHateAccounts (talk) I will leave it to those more experienced than I am if this ought to be actioned or taken to one of the places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or something else. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a baffling comment, not really sure what the "CCP prostitutes" thing was about. Not sure it really needs further action, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCP is the Chinese Communist Party. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that (and they wikilinked it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people "CCP prostitutes" is a common smear in the right-wing echo chamber when they want to accuse someone of being connected to China. I've seen it often with people accusing the World Health Organization of things using that language thanks to Trump. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought "CCP prostitutes" was the conspiracy theory that the CCP send prostitutes to embarrass and shame their enemies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Did you read the removal? The text involved was Tickle Me's wording "the former quality press is losing any credibility among non-Democrats, as CCP prostitutes aren't popular, ratings and sales are plummeting", accusing any non-extreme-right-wing outlets of being "CCP Prostitutes". This is a common slur that right-wing individuals use, and I have seen numerous COVID-19 pandemic denialists using the same slur to attack the World Health Organization following Trump's attacks on the WHO this summer. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean in this case specifically. I have never seen say the phrase "CCP Prostitutes" been used in the way you are describing before, so either I am lucky enough to avoid those circles and/or it is not as common as you think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia, For what it's worth, my experiences match yours. SQL^{Query me!} 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

Vox/Recode coverage of Wikipedia Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw! I thought she did a pretty good job. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about Wikipedia:Press coverage 2020 and there must be a half dozen articles about Wikipedia and tomorrow's election. Some of it is really wrong, like stating that every editor who has a page on their Watchlist will get an email message every time the page is edited. It makes it sound more vigilant than it is. I'm sure the main articles will have lots of eyes on them though. I was more concerned about surreptitious editing in the months leading up to the election than I am about tomorrow which is such a high profile day. We've had four years to get ready for this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reporters have been busy this past week or two. It's hard to write about Wikipedia, given it's all really hard for "outsiders" to understand well, and so you tend to see a lot of mistakes like the watchlist one you mention. A few reporters have been on the "Wikipedia beat" for a while now, though, and have gotten pretty good. I think the potential for m/disinformation is still high through the election, but I agree with you generally. If I were trying to influence an election I'd probably to introduce misleading info much before people were voting, and especially with all the early voting this year, that time has mostly passed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I posted on Samwalton9 (WMF)'s talk page that the Hunter Biden articles had some vandalism a while ago from three different IP accounts that located in Moscow. I didn't expect it to be that obvious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no shortage of established US-based editors who are more than willing to bludgeon article talk pages with partisan misinformation, so it seems like the Russians could save their efforts. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on even more coverage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to chip in and say I also thought the article was pretty good, and I believe a little more public-facing transparency is probably salutary for this place. So in short, both kudos and thanks to you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd made the initial edits for this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Islamic_renaissance_front and that will be it for now. Is it possible to have it as a normal page and not draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageeb Gounjaria (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nageeb Gounjaria: I moved that page to the draftspace because I saw that you had just created it and so were probably still working on it. However I did so as an alternative to deleting the page, which is what many administrators would have done. It quite readily fits two of the speedy deletion criteria: G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (no indication of importance). I didn't see it at the time, but it also apparently could have been deleted per G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement), which I see Sphilbrick noticed and addressed. It is completely lacking in independent, reliable sources. Until those issues are addressed, it will not be moved to the main articlespace. I would recommend reading Help:Your first article, improving the page accordingly, and then adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page when you think it is ready. That will add it to a queue of articles to be reviewed by experienced Wikipedia editors, who can either move it to the main articlespace if it is ready, or provide feedback on what else needs to be addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry I'm new to wikipedia and have no idea how to edit/have conversations. Hopefully this is the right spot.

Can I ask why you reverted changes on the 'PUMA' disambiguation page which included the phrase 'Party Unity My Ass'?

While the organization is officially known as 'People United Means Action', the term is backronym for the much more commonly used 'Party Unity My Ass' (as shown on the page for 'People United Means Action'. I think this is relevant to include because the unofficial name is much more common in political discourse. For example, People United Means Action only has 2100 google hits ( https://www.google.com/search?q="People+United+Means+Action ), while Party Unity My Ass has 350,000 google hits ( https://www.google.com/search?q="party+unity+my+ass" ). There are numerous articles which use that term, including ones from VOX, The Guardian, Washington Post, and New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.34.38 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it appeared to me to be vandalism, as it was unsourced and appeared derogatory. While it does appear the statement could be sourced, a slangy name for the committee is not something that ought to be included in a disambiguation page, which is meant to just briefly identify each entry so that people can go to the main page to learn more. If you wish, it could potentially be added (with sourcing this time) to People United Means Action, maybe in the "Criticism" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little confused. It's on the People United Means Action page already, and the name was the *original* name for the group which became People United when it was formally incorporated. Quote from the article: "The PUMA acronym as originally coined stood for "Party Unity My Ass", but the PAC was registered as "People United Means Action," a backronym". Given the sheer ubiquity of this term (again, more common and older than 'People United Means Action'), what would make it qualify for inclusion on the disambiguation page?

As for sourcing, it appears nothing else is sourced on the disambiguation page? What are the standards for including alternative names? I ask because I was trying to find the group and was surprised there was no 'Party Unity My Ass' wikipedia page, not realizing that the much more notable term (I am using google hits as a metric for notability, but is there some better way to establish it?) was excluded.

I'm not trying to be rude, just confused and new to wikipedia. Sorry if this seems confrontational at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.34.38 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that misunderstanding was on me. I tried searching the page for 'party unity' but I must've typoed it because it didn't show up when I first searched, but you're correct that it's in there. Given that, I think it's ok to re-add to the disambig page, and I can do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hola - you reverted my edit to my text on ANI, but that link didn't work, while the one on the version I last edited did! Any reason? Sorry, saw your next click belatedly! Cheers Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that! My computer is getting up there in years and slowing down a bit, and sometimes it loads the page slowly such that when I go to click a link, more of the page loads and I end up misclicking. I have a script that's supposed to ask for confirmation when I click rollback from my watchlist, but I think because the issue is due to slow loading, sometimes the script hasn't loaded either and it goes through. Apologies for the confusion! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How time flies! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare,

I think this is another blow to Fox News's credibility, if they have any left. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/media/fox-news-election-projection-plan/index.html

I also think it's time for a Reliable Sources discussion regarding Fox's diminishing factual reliability, but I don't know the best way to go about filing it or how much information I need to gather and how it should be formatted. Could you offer some advice? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I think your best bet would be to model it after the previous RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News. The layout of the RfC should neutrally lay out the various options, which you may be able to actually reuse almost completely from that RfC. Because the previous RfC was only three months ago, I would also strongly suggest briefly laying out why you think circumstances have changed substantially since then such that a new RfC is justified; otherwise it is liable to be flooded with comments that we shouldn't waste time revisiting an RfC so soon. You might consider drafting the RfC in a user subpage somewhere and then getting some outside input -- maybe from the people who drafted the original RfC. The last Fox News RfC was quite high-engagement, and I would expect the same to be true of any future one, so making sure the RfC is extremely well-constructed before kicking off conversation is worth the time and effort. You might consider seeing if any of the previous drafters, or other experienced Wikipedians, wish to team up with you on creating the next one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, if I may follow up on GW, I would not do it now, or not yet, and not based on just this article (I'm not saying you don't have more evidence). I have no doubt that in the aftermath of this election there will be a slew of research on this. Academic publishing is a slow affair, but it may well be that editorial boards of publications like the Columbia Journalism Review will come out with statements; such articles will come quicker than studies that go through the regular editorial process. In general, for such discussions (that will become very loaded very quickly) the more academic, peer-reviewed sources you can find, the better it is. But maybe I'm telling you something you already know--in which case, my apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: This came up today and it is similar in analysis. https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/11/10/fox-new-hypocrisy-election-results-stelter-newday-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/ I am very open to the idea of establishing a drafting page somewhere as GorillaWarfare suggested and I would love to have some help in collecting the sources and formatting it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just wanted to let you know that the user 'Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d' is likely a sockpuppet of user 'PackMecEng.' On the article talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karen_Bass they have been commenting with these two accounts within minutes of each other in an attempt to manufacture a false consensus. This user has already been accused of using multiple accounts before, especially given that this newish account seems to be a longtime user. Thanks! Dosafrog (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosafrog: If you believe they are sockpuppets, you should file a report at WP:SPI. I filed an arbitration enforcement report with respect to Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d a few weeks ago and so it would be improper for me to get involved in an admin capacity with respect to that user. I should say that simply commenting on the same side of an argument in quick succession as a different account is probably not sufficient evidence for SPI, though—that kind of thing happens often when two users are active at the same time and share the same opinion, and is not itself a sign of sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Hello. After this user issued a vile, personal attack against me [1], they seem to have stalked my entire edit history. They have proceeded to edit war with me [2],[3], and they have falsely claimed to have consensus [4]. They have inserted contentious edits that are actively being discussed on an RfC [5]. Furthermore, they have removed large chunks of sourced material, without first discussing it on the talk page: [6], [7]. And now, they are baselessly accusing me of being a sock (btw, feel free to check, if you want). All of these edits occurred after their block was lifted. Is there any merit to file an WP:ANI report against them? Or, is there some remedy for WP:Harassment? I appreciate the advice. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: If you need admin intervention, ANI would be the place to go. Like I said, I'm not going to get involved administratively with respect to you for obvious reasons, on any side of a dispute in which you're involved (and while I appreciate you saying it'd be okay, it's still something I'm going to steer clear of). ANI is full of uninvolved admins who'll be able to help resolve any dispute, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosafrog: I did some google searching and found out that Wikipedia has some tools at Wikipedia:Tools/User_interaction_investigations to compare. I am not experienced enough to say anything other than their closest timing is on Karen Bass, then Charlie Kirk (activist), and then Talk:Donald Trump. I am concerned about Swag Lord's attempting to push material that seems to be WP:UNDUE and crossing a line into WP:BLP-violating accusations of Karen Bass being a scientologist, especially as Swag Lord had to be warned by Muboshgu and yet accuses you of having "removed large chunks of sourced material, without first discussing it on the talk page" without acknowledging that their insertion of the material was improper. Part of my concern is that at least on Swag Lord's part this is looking dangerously close to the sort of behavior that I first saw them exhibit when they were edit-warring trying to insert the WP:Deadname of a minor into an article. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are actively at RfPP right now. Could you take a look at my request for a few hours full protection of Donald Trump? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Yep, I actually just implemented it while you were leaving this message. Do you have a good suggestion for a clean revision to revert to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We worked that out at the talk page. An issue that occurred to me: It’s important that there not be any unprotected lapse between the full protection and the previous EC protection. So we should restore EC before the full expires. I see that the full protection expires after 12 hours. You installed it about 10 a.m. my time (pacific) which means it will expire about 10 p.m. my time. Will you be able to convert it back to EC before that, or do you want me to, or do you want to extend the full protection to a more convenient expiration time for you? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good call-out. I'll try converting it back a little later tonight and see how that goes—if disruption resumes I'll extend the full protection to sometime during my waking hours tomorrow and then revisit it then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the section is sourced to TorrentFreak, as are many other parts of the article, so apparently that's considered a "reliable source". To say that it is unsourced, is simply a bald-faced lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.235.213 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* this is the format for the vite you're going for, let me know if it isn't and I messed things up. Artw (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I was figuring people would just bold their choice of Options 1–4 like that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Artw (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare. I didn't mean to use rollback on your edit, sorry. I just checked; there is a Wikipedia article for the person specified in the edit you reverted. I've added it. Thanks. Silikonz (💬│🖋) 04:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good catch, thanks! No worries about the rollback, I do that by accident too sometimes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Silikonz (💬│🖋) 04:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare. Regarding Boyce-Sneed_feud, the original reports said it was eight dead but at some point it was changed to seven in the main article while leaving the 8 in the infobox. The reason for this is the Sneed meme from the Simpsons when the character Sneed talks about soil pH levels (7 to 8 max). So people started to edit the article to make it unclear if it was 7 or 8 dead. You can check the edit history. Thank you.

I've no idea how you do it, but I'm constantly amazed at how productive an editor and janitor sysop you are while also productively serving on ArbCom and getting more than your fair share slung your way. I really appreciate all you do for the project, thank you! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —valereee (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind of you. It helps a bit that we've had a fairly quiet few months on the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Donald Trump left out many glaring weaknesses of Trump for witch much evidence exists. He should be clearly identified as a science denier and the one person who has done The most to interfere with progress on climate change. You left out the part where was it 35 prominent psychiatrists Declared him mentally unfit as a president. He also made many many comments evidencing his racist tendencies not to mention putting the children in jail in cages and keeping them from their families. Your article on Trump does not include any truth about the fact that he had no compassion or evidence of compassion for the less fortunate, for people of color, for immigrants. You say that to make a change in your article about Donald Trump you would need evidence : what about the evidence that he stopped the best scientist and medical professionals from leading our country to a healthier experience of the Covid virus. Many believe him to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.Your article should make it clear that he was not a president for the people. There’s a lot of other stuff...open your eyes correct your reporting. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:808:84F5:3134:8829:FD10:970C (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions for changes to the article should be made at Talk:Donald Trump, along with reliable sourcing supporting the changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan has theorized that Watkins controls the account ... this bothers me, on both WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP grounds. For weight, is it really one of the most important things about Brennan that he has theorized something about someone else? Surely not, unless that someone else is of a truly massive notability, which Watkins is not; Watkins has a barely longer article than Brennan does. For BLP, should we really write about, again, a not-tremendously-notable living person, in the lead of another person's article, that someone thinks they are the cause of a highly controversial (to put it mildly) conspiracy theory? It's like putting that someone thinks you're Bigfoot. I'd think we need to remove that last sentence from the lead. --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the (recent, at least) coverage of Brennan has been because of his research into the identity of Q, which is why I put it in the lead. The fact that, among Q journalists, "some of them think it's likely, everyone agrees it's more than plausible" ([8]) is what made me comfortable doing it. Do you still disagree it should be included? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely, plausible" isn't the bar that we need to meet for BLP, it's more like truthiness. How about we replace it in the lead with the proven, that he proved QMap was owned by Watkins? --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lead per your concerns. (Sorry for the capitalization issue with your username). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok honestly, I think Bus stop is deliberately feigning ignorance to try to frustrate other commenters and provoke angry responses. They can't be THAT blind to the reasons that conservatives have gotten themselves banned from Twitter over the years, nor the same stuff that those conservatives are now posting on Parler that is getting covered in reliable sources. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem there's some amount of WP:IDHT given they continue to repeat the WP:OTHERSTUFF Twitter argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the same feeling around them that I have about that Jroehl account, and Emir and Swag Lord. I'm not sure why other than it seems to be behavior particular to a clique, half the time they haven't read the policies (or think the policies should read differently if not downright oppositely) and half the time it looks like they never read the sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Jroehl's behavior I think can be attributed to unfamiliarity—though the account has been registered since 2009 they have just under 300 edits, only 57 of which were this year. Bus Stop, on the other hand, has 43,000+ edits and advanced userrights, and really ought to have a solid understanding of our policies and guidelines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found your message on my talk page sorry for what I did Atharv Khamkar (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]