User talk:Platonk

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Platonk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maid to Order, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clarence Reid and Willie Clark. 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) 05:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conduent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fortune and Prepaid card.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Veterinary Medical Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tradescantia zebrina, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A source has to actually support the claim. Your supposed source did not even mention the term "Wandering Dude" Meters (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Responded on Talk:Tradescantia zebrina#Wandering Jew where this notice should have been in the first place. Platonk (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 18:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing cited information per WP:GUNREL

Please stop, or slow down, your content removals linking to this. Feel free to replace with {{BSN}} or {{CN}} if you're not going to look for sourcing yourself. I've found one edit already that meets an acceptable use case for a source you've removed here, as WP:RSP says The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Do not assume I haven't evaluated each and every edit I've made. Read WP:GUNREL again (specifically, "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person."), then WP:GOSSIP. I will happily use BSN or CN if warranted, but never for gossip content in a BLP.

• Re Breitbart News: If you look at the content where Ben Shapiro/Daily Wire utters vitriole about Steve Bannon/Breitbart News, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP) writes of Daily Wire, "There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting," (tagged as Generally Unreliable) and the removal of the content (and citation) doesn't affect the reader's understanding of the topic, then I can infer that what you want to include (and what I had removed) is gossip. Perhaps WP:BLP should apply since the comment is directed at Bannon even though it is inserted into the article Breitbart News. The inclusion of Shapiro's comment is unnecessary. That it may be "an acceptable use case" is, frankly, irrelevant.
• Re Steve Bannon: Similarly, your reversion [1] of my edit at Steve Bannon complaining that "The Daily Beast is a fine source" is no different. Gossip. RSP writes of The Daily Beast, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Since the removal of the content with citations for Daily Wire and Daily Beast doesn't change the reader's understanding, it should be removed.
• Re Gina Carano: Similarly, your reversion [2] of my edit at Gina Carano is to include irrelevant UNDUE gossip sourced by two Daily Wire articles. Your replacement citations don't verify for "three popular television reporting services". Yes, I can look further and find this [3] that mentions TVMaze which is what Deseret News also mentions, but why bother. I don't know what your purpose is, especially with an edit summary of "really?", but who cares about "is she, isn't she" speculations when eventually "she did" as already mentioned in the article at Gina Carano#Television and Running Wild with Bear Grylls#Season 6 (2021).
• Re Trey Parker: I see you got the idea of gossip and reverted your revert. Thank you.

Now I will resume my project, hopefully uninterrupted by further attempts to 'save' Daily Wire citations sourcing gossip/undue content. Platonk (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your "project" appears to be a personal vendetta. If a statement is unreliable, then it can certainly be removed, but removing solely because Daily Wire posted it is an incorrect assumption. If a person from the KKK says the sky is blue, that doesn't suddenly make such a claim false. It means that the statement can/should be questioned, but it may still be a fact. You've removed more than just Daily Wire claims. Likewise, Daily Wire claims about themselves may still be accurate depending on context (example: "On <date X> Daily Wire published an article in which they stated...") By definition, that statement indeed can be verified as a primary source.

Context is everything. Buffs (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit in particular is an excellent example where you are removing a valid primary source. Buffs (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is not a RS. Period. Don't use it as a source, and you really shouldn't read it, unless you're just doing research to see what kind of nonsense unreliable sources are posting. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- Valjean (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Very succinctly put. Platonk (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: Wiki guidelines on WP:GUNREL & WP:BLP are clear. Whether or not the facts are true (as said by an unreliable source) is irrelevant. If one cannot find another source that says it, and the content doesn't really add value to the article anyway, then we're supposed to remove it. Suggesting that such [removed] edits were okay to keep based on specifically mentioning who said exactly what flies directly into the teeth of GUNREL because it is not an "exceptional circumstance", not an "uncontroversial self-description", and violates "never be used for information about a living person". If you have any further issues about any particular edits I made, please take it up on the Talk page of the article in question. You can tag me there. Platonk (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: I see...we're going to go with gaslighting and demonizing your enemies...

Let's just start with BRD:

• Here is the original state of the article which has existed unchallenged for ~3 years
• Here is the first bold edit (removing the Daily Wire citation)
• Here is my reversion

By definition, BRD should have stopped there and a talk page discussion ensued. Rather than admit that, Valjean decided to violate discretionary sanctions by engaging in edit warring (he readily admits he knows the DS on the top of his talk page) and reverts the reversion noting it's a deprecated source. I provide the appropriate link to an archived view and explain why it fits as a primary source and Snooganssnoogans reverts out of no where and warns ME about edit warring, but not Valjean. So, instead of an honest discussion, we have gaslighting, gaming the system, and insults taking place from liberal activists/veteran editors supporting such uncivil behavior with threats of blocks when they know they are engaging in edit warring. When ALL conservative opinions are labeled “unreliable”, you’ve completely lost neutrality.

As a leading conservative, Shapiro’s opinions are indeed notable and the document at hand is a WP:primary source (and clearly labeled as such): "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So, indeed, "Whether or not the facts are true..." are indeed a point of consideration (by the way, facts, by definition ARE true). Nothing in WP:BLP or WP:GUNREL counters this. As such, it can be used. Then Valjean calls verifiable, noncontroversial facts "nonsense" and insults those who read/appreciate Daily Wire for what it is: conservative opinion. Thanks for poisoning the well (really makes things nice and WP:CIVIL! #sarcasm).

It's "funny"...Valjean has never edited these articles before I did...

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Perhaps brushing up on WP:Wikihounding, WP:PRIMARY, WP:N, and many others might be in order here...

Instead of edit warring, threatening, gaslighting, wikistalking, etc and why don't we actually follow the oh-so-holy BRD process, admit YOUR actions violate it (among other policies), YOU revert, and then we can have an honest discussion. Until then it's painfully obvious you aren't serious and, instead, are out to bully people until you get your way via misinterpretation of WP policy and uncivil behavior. Buffs (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, by definition, an opinion by a person is a "self-description". There isn't anything particularly controversial about the statement, so it's uncontroversial. It doesn't violate BLP as it is clearly labeled the opinion of someone; there is no accusation of impropriety here by the subject of the BLP. Buffs (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)