User talk:Burrobert

Archives

Archive 1

Kostakidis edit Please see talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DpcJupiter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how are self described communists not far left? because you're a marxist too?

Welcome!

Hello, Burrobert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts so other editors can easily see who made the post. You can add your signature just by typing "~~~~" Bennv3771 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I must remember to do that but it’s so easy to forget. Burrobert 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: You sign your posts on talk pages, not when editing articles. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Thanks Eagleash. Signing just got a little more complicated. However, having it written on my talk page at least gives me a place to come to when in doubt.

Burrobert 16:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 any 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.

Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. --ZiaLater (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit:

Hello Burrobert, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	The price of liberty is eternal bookmarking GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GPRamirez5. You are very kind. Burrobert (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to look at the original and the translations and comment when I’m not mobile. Ping me if you haven’t heard anything in a couple of days. Thanks for your efforts st the Lula article. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be helpful. I don't feel comfortable arguing my point too forcefully on the basis of a google translation. Burrobert (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions on specific sentences or paragraphs, ask me anytime. Or I can translate a paragraph or two or three into English from time to time, if it's not whole articles. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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-1932 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to MI5. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text comes from the Wikipedia page for Pat Finucane. Specifically it says "He was killed by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Defence Association acting in collusion with the British government intelligence service MI5". Burrobert (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me dropping in here, but I noticed that you've edited the 77th Brigade article on numerous occasions, I wanted to add that they are currently working with the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit countering "disinformation" around Covid-19. I am quite new and I'm still a bit unsure about reliable sources. Could you please tell me whether the Metro and The National are ok, or not? Thank you. --DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeltaSnowQueen. It appears that The Metro is considered unreliable so avoid using that as a source. I was only able to find one previous discussion of The National (Scotland) which is available here [1]. The paper obviously has a bias but that does not preclude you from using it as a source. It may be best to attribute any claims it makes by saying, for example, "According to the The National, ... ". Burrobert (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Burrobert. I guessed the Metro would be dodgy. I'll have another look for potential sources and if I find anything I'll raise it on the article Talk Page before I edit. Thanks again. --DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your reference to it from the talk page because the source is so clearly unreliable and conspiracy theory it should not be posted there. If you still disagree then let's open a case at WP:RSN. -- GreenC 13:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there -- a while back I paid to get some German professionally translated, but I'm worried that they may not have done a very good job. I'm wondering if you could help or could recommend someone? It's in relation to the Nils Menzler confusion I had awhile back. I'm thinking a lot of this is a bad translation, or could use some more cultural context. Any feedback would be appreciated. - Scarpy (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Scarpy. I don't speak German. Mathglot may be able to help you. His talk page says "This user is a translator from Deutsch to English on Wikipedia:Translation". The Wikipedia:Translation page may also be of interest to you. I did run your sentences through google translate to see what came out. The google translations are generally fairly close to your translations. However, here are some points where your translations may be able to be improved:

• One of the sentences is translated as "... a comprehensive explanation of the origin and functioning of the universe, something that physicists like Stephen Hawking long for in public books". I would expect that the original is more likely to mean something like "a comprehensive explanation of the origin and functioning of the universe, something that physicists like Stephen Hawking aim for in their public books".
• Another of your translations is "It also seems revealing that such a current paraphysical theory is based on the relatively new concept of unfolded information". I haven't heard of "unfolded information" and a search doesn't bring up anything useful. A more likely translation of that sentence is something like "It also seems revealing that such a current paraphysical theory is based on the relatively new concept of information". The theory of information is fairly recent, starting from Shannon's writings in the 1940's I think.
• Another of your translations is "His theory makes the God unavailable to physics obsolete". I think this is more likely to be something like "The view that God is unavailable to physics is made obsolete by his theory".

Burrobert (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy:, I got as far as Selbstinszenierung and then stopped, because that one is interesting (read, "hard").

German translation is hard; so much more than French or Spanish or other Romance languages. Fortunately, these sentences were short, with very standard syntax, unlike some written German, which can go on and on for days, before you get to the verb, and contain parentheses within parentheses within parentheses of embedded clauses, until you forgot what the subject was, by the time you finally do hit the verb. Anyway... While "Szene" can be "stage", and "selbst-" is definitely "self-", I'm not sure "self-staging" makes sense. I mean, does this make sense to you:

• Langan is an outsider scientist who draws attention to himself primarily through his self-staging.

It doesn't, to me. Or at least, I'd have to have a ton more context. A couple of things there, imply a slight criticism or negative judgment, like outsider and draws attention to himself, would you agree? In that case, if you take Selbstinszenierung which is (or can be) a neutral word, merely descriptive, and follow that slight negative spin on the rest of the sentence, then it might take you down the path, of one of these choices: self-promotion, self-exposure, self-aggrandizement, even making a spectacle of himself if the context indicates some serious "drawing attention to himself" or indicates some negative appraisals. Is Langen a psychologist? If so, there's a term from Carl Rogers, self-actualization, which wouldn't be very good as a direct translation in most cases, a better word for that wold be Selbstaktualisierung; however if that is the right domain, the author might be making a sly reference to Rogers, by way of choosing a German word like Selbstinszenierung that is kind of like it, instead of some other word. But that whole thread seems unlikely, since all the other sciences mentioned in that series are the hard sciences, like physics, so psychology seems like the wrong domain.

Sometimes a single word, can really make you think. The other sentences look okay to me. By the way, I rate myself "intermediate" (see the Category lists for Category:User de-N for native speakers if you want really deep analysis of a single word. If you want running translation into English, unless you can find someone who's double-native in de and en, you should pick someone whose native language is English (User en-N) and very high German (Category:User de-5). Good luck! The hard thing, is finding someone who's still editing (make sure to check their latest contributions before reaching out; I've sometimes gone through 20 or 30 editors, before finding someone who's edited anything in the last month or so). Don't want to waste your time sending out requests to people who quit editing in 2011. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: I just had a look at this discussion linked from your Talk subpage, and it leads to the account of someone who is embroiled in controversy right now. There is no taint by association, so you could just ignore it and carry on as before, but if this isn't something where time is of the essence, I would recommend you drop this for now, shift your attention to some other topic, and come back after some time has elapsed, if you're still interested. Just my 2 cents. Mathglot (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot thank you for this! I believe your advice here in the post-script is spot on. This topic could use some cooling off before approaching again. - Scarpy (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just wanted to compliment you on your expansions to both Media Lens and Wilfred Burchett. The scale and quality of your work rocks. Jlevi (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jlevi. It’s very gratifying to get feedback like that from another editor, especially one with your experience. Burrobert (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

What’s your take on Greenwald posting this: https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/802495984848736256?lang=en ?

Do you think he just reported the news or sympathetic? Kacziey (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on Greenwald's page. Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why can't Skawkbox and Canary be used as sources? Too partisan? GibbNotGibbs (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GibbNotGibbs: The entries for The Canary and Swarwkbox at the Reliable/Perennial Source page provide a summary of previous discussions and include links to the full discussions. Editors regard both sources as biased, which is not surprising. A biased source can still be used but generally the statements must be attributed to the source. See, for example, the entries for The American Conservative and Arab News. The reason why we can't use either The Canary or Skwawkbox as a source is that they have been judged to be unreliable. The unreliability of Swarwkbox is due to it being self-published (like a blog). I'll let you read the discussion to work out why The Canary is considered unreliable. My own opinion, which you will see in the discussions, is that both are fine as sources with appropriate attribution. The editors who considered The Canary and Skwawkbox as unreliable provided two examples of errors, neither of which was significant in my opinion. Have a look and see what you think. Burrobert (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] I assume we're talking about Talk:Vanessa_Beeley#Tweet_inclusion_disagreement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you so much for your observations on GA - I find that they're very helpful. Can I ask a favour? As you can see, this article has prompted a lot of talk and not everyone is constructive so we need to try to ensure discussions go well. One thing that would help is to make sure each talk section only covers one topic, as far as is practicable. So, WP:TALKSUBHEADING "Use separate subsection headings to discuss multiple changes" and WP:TALKHEADING "Make a new heading for a new topic". It might not seem necessary immediately but helps if discussions continue for any length of time, and also helps one find old discussions on an issue. I hope that is all right. Thanks again for your suggestions and comments! Jontel (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s fine. I will try to stick to those principles. Burrobert (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you're the main author of Steven Donziger. I think the article is close to GA quality. Can I tempt you to nominate it? I think it would make a very good WP:Did you know (fyi, an article promoted to good article status within the last seven days can be nominated for did you know). I fleshed out some of the pre-Chevron career. Probably the only two things that need to happen still is trying to find more information on his early life, and expanding the lead. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent news Femkemilene. I would be happy to nominate the article. Should I try to remedy the two shortcomings that you mention prior to nomination? Burrobert (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please make the life of reviewers as easy as possible :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

See above standard DS messages (I know you got these in 2019, but not in the last 12 months). --Neutrality^talk 15:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit - diff.
You removed Fatima Tlisova wikilink. If you've made a mistake, please restore the wikilink. If it was intentional I will ask you for an explanation. --Renat 09:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you removed boldface from "factograph.info". Please, explain why. --Renat 09:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the wikilink as I did not intend to remove it. See the article talk page for my comment on the correct use of boldface type. Burrobert (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Steven Donziger you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Steven Donziger you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Steven Donziger for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Steven Donziger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Steven Donziger for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I thought I'd respond here to your request for an example of a journalist who has challenged Assange being described as a journalist. The one example that I'm aware of is journalist and now journalism academic Peter Greste, who published an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2019 under the title 'Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom'. Greste's argument. if i understand it correctly, is that Assange did not take care in selecting material to be posted online, but merely dumped documents indiscriminately online. There was no act of journalism as such. Now I should say that I believe that this assertion in contested by others. I suspect that Greste also would not like folk being described as citizen journalists. Greste is, I think, and again I could be wrong, coming from a position where journalism is or should be tightly defined as a profession. Hope that helps. Redaction101 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right-ho thanks for the reference. I vaguely remember reading the article at some stage but had forgotten about it. Peter Greste is notable so his opinion means something. Greste's argument seems to be the most common reason why people don't think Assange and Wikileaks do journalism. As you mentioned, his version of what Wikileaks does is contested, including during Assange's recent trial. There is also the existence of the "New York Times problem", which stopped the US prosecuting Assange during Obama's reign. You may have seen it mentioned on the talk page. It says that there is no legal distinction between what Assange does and what the New York Times does. I think it is unlikely that any consensus on this question will be achieved at Wikipedia for a while. I think the question of whether or not to consider Assange a journalist, either here or elsewhere, contains a political element because of the supposed protections (mainly in the US I think) that come from being a journalist. I know very little about the US constitution. Some people have said that journalism is protected under the free speech section of the First Amendment. I have also read that the protection applies to anyone who publishes and disseminates information. Under the latter interpretation, Assange is protected by the First Amendment irrespective of whether he is called a journalist or not. I suspect that some people would prefer not to use the term journalist for him in order to remove any possibility that he would receive this protection. The question of whether this protection applies would need to be argued in court but hopefully it doesn't get that far. If Assange is tried in the US, it will be in the infamous espionage court in the Eastern District of Virginia. There will be limits on the sort of defences that Assange can use and any jury will be chosen from a community that has a high proportion of intelligence services personnel, which is why the US chooses that district for its espionage cases. John Kiriakou, who was in the same court, said "No national security defendant has ever won a case in the EDVA. In my case, I asked Judge Brinkema to declassify 70 documents that I needed to defend myself. She denied all 70 documents. And so I had literally no defense for myself and was forced to take a plea". Burrobert (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on the above, on a range of levels. The information about the Eastern District of Virginia is informative, and, if true, disturbing, as is so much about this saga. I will do some more reading. Overall, I agree that it's probably not worth pushing this point (whether he is a journalist) on this particular Wikipedia page - although it is a little weird that he should be awarded a recognized journalism prize and yet not considered a journalist. The article does say Assange is a publicist, which I suppose is close to a journalist, and which in any case, as you point out, would mean that he is probably protected by the First Amendment. I think you're also correct in that whether Assange is described as a journalist is also political, in that it relates to his entitlement to protection. This brings me to another observation, and this is how Wikipedia itself often becomes very political and very ideological. It's not hard to read through the Talk Page and see how that often editors have a particular barrow to push. I did read somewhere a Wikipedia policy saying that editors should not push an ideological viewpoint. I think that the anti-Assange editors are worse, but then again I would say this, and I happen to believe that he should not be in prison, so I too have a point of view. I suppose the thing is that if I were to actually edit such an important article as the Assange article, hopefully I would at least try to objective. Anyways, thanks for responding in such detail. Redaction101 (talk)

Just came upon this article which discusses the debate over whether Julian Assange is a journalist.^[1] The headline is that "The WikiLeaks arrest is about the journalism, not the journalist: The debate over whether Julian Assange is a journalist or not serves no purpose other than to undercut future press freedom". Here is a quote

To prioritise the status of “journalist” over “journalism” is to get it precisely arse-about. Journalism is a practice. You become a journalist by practicing journalism — digging out and spreading fact-based news, in all its glorious diversity. The practice of journalism has an important job to do: to provide the public with the information they need to exercise their own civil rights. For the authorities, it’s a con by states clamping down on freedom of speech: it’s not journalism, they say. It’s false news. It’s not licensed, not approved. Find any journalist detained around the world and you’ll find the detaining government — from Sisi’s Egypt to Suharto’s Indonesia — spruiking some variation or other of this “not a journalist” line.

Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with the RFC [[3]]?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to sign. Burrobert (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must have got removed during cut and paste.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, easily done. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your edits on San Isidro Movement. Could you add another source or two for the US ties items? I ask because the article has been repeatedly edited in the past to include similar claims based on Youtube vloggers, or with no source at all. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 12:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw a New York Times article that mentions it as well. Burrobert (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have now referred three times to Julian Assange as "our hero":

• Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're using the royal "our" and not speaking for other editors. But please, is this meant to be sarcastic, or do you truly regard him as a hero? Either way, I wonder if you are hoping to influence other editors with this nomenclature. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am well aware of my edit history. Editors can interpret the remark any way they want. Burrobert (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Question dodged. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know more about this subject than I do, so I'll ask you. Do you have any idea why Pompeo, who was part of the Trump administration, would turn against WikiLeaks, which had helped Trump so much? -- Valjean (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t claim to be an expert, or even particularly well informed, about American politics. My thoughts below are based on rather limited readings in a few areas that intersect with Pompeo.

Pompeo is a political animal who will say anything that he thinks is politically expedient, even if it contradicts things he has said previously. I think is pointless to look for consistency in anything he says.

Pompeo cited Wikileaks in his tweets and media appearances to attack Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. On 24 July 2016, he tweeted “Need further proof that the fix was in from Pres. Obama on down? BUSTED: 19,252 Emails from DNC Leaked by Wikileaks,”.

The change in Pompeo’s attitude to Assange and Wikileaks after the election was a lot more extreme than that of Trump, who merely lost interest in them. Wikileaks served Pompeo’s purposes while he was trying to bring down Hillary Clinton. There is an indication that his attitude may have started changing early in 2017. Soon after Pompeo was confirmed as CIA director in January 2017 he gave an explanation of the July 2016 tweet (and presumably also his other references to Wikileaks during the campaign) "Based on additional briefings and information, including the reports released by the Intelligence Community, I now have a much deeper understanding of Wikileaks and its harmful activities". This indicates that becoming CIA director required him to regard Wikileaks as a hostile entity. It came with the job.

Most opinion attributes the change in Pompeo’s attitude to the release of Vault 7 by Wikileaks in March 2017. Pompeo’s first public remarks as CIA director in April 2017 were mainly about what he saw as the threat of Wikileaks. The recent Yahoo report said Pompeo was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange and was "completely detached from reality because [he was] so embarrassed about Vault 7". There is also the "psychology of the individual" as Poirot often says. Pompeo is an unsubtle, aggressive bully who won't stand for being thwarted. "I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole ... like, we had entire training courses". When Vault 7 was released on his watch, he naturally went on the attack.

What do you think?

Burrobert (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeo was head of CIA when the Vault 7 stuff started leaking. It could also be that the relationship between Trump and WikiLeaks was overplayed and overhyped in the media. (edit - opened this page and started typing before Burrobert responded). Mr Ernie (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Donziger has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people are interested in reading alll the way through the Yahoo News Investigation section now, there is something about it in the article and one has got to ask oneself what is the point of adding to that if the extra is unlikely to contribute to the article. If you'd like to start a separate article on what was in the Yahoo article and led up to it you might be able to use it there. NadVolum (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive suggestions Nad. Coverage of the Yahoo report is starting to drop off so there is unlikely to be much more to add for the moment. Nevertheless, a lot of interesting information has come from the report and subsequent developments. I don't intend to propose any changes to our current text and it is unlikely that an expansion would be approved by editors. A proper biography on Assange would, of course, go into a lot more detail on the assassination/kidnapping plans. There is another reason for documenting the Yahoo report’s coverage in the media. There is an active RfC on the talk page about whether the Yahoo report should be mentioned in the article and some editors do not think it is appropriate. As you probably know, the RfC arose from the talk page section "Yahoo News investigation". You make a valid point about creating a separate page to deal with US plans to assassinate, kidnap and spy on Assange. There has been enough coverage to justify a separate page and the comments from the talk page could be used as a starting point. There is a similar page about assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. Burrobert (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brother Mule!

I've just made a great suggestion about the whole Assange kerfuffle. Please say you'll help!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS Are you really a Melbournian? Forgive my impertinence... Cos when I'm allowed to go to Melba I'd like to meet you for a coffee/beer/smashed avo. Anyway just a thought.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Has anyone seen Trump and Assange together in the same room? Jokes.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jack I am a resident of the great southern capital (no offence intended to Hobart). Curious as to how you worked that out. Or was it a speculative guess. Let me know when you are in town. Smashed avo is de rigeur here. Regarding your proposal, Julian's life and achievements are too big to confine to one page so there are many opportunities for content forks. Given the hundred or so references on the talk-page about US plans to kidnap/assassinate him, one possibility is "US intelligence operations against Julian Assange" (similar to the page on Fidel Castro). A page devoted to assessments would be fine as well. If we were allowed to have a page devoted to jokes about JA, we could add your quip about Trump to it. Let me know when you get it up and running and I will plough in. Burrobert (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse both your suggestion to the hilt and beyond. Particularly the one on Fidel Castro. But we might need to say "Alleged...." I am indisposed to actually research at the moment due to failing eyesight, plumbing probs etc, but I will keep you in the loop, I trust.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by your reference to "our Premier", which I took to be a reference to Chairman Dan and the Flinders Street Soviet. Etc. Melbourne is Macarthur's Capital, so it should hold no grudge against Sydney.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would also say that a "joak" is an assessment. But I don't have a WP: or a RS to back up this airy assertion. Yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your afflictions which sound as though they may be age-related. Good pick up on the reference to "our premier". May our glorious and exalted leader continue to protect and nourish us through these tempestuous times. The relationship with our northern neighbour is complicated. Some of us have relatives on the other side of the Murray so have to remain measured in our comments. You will need to explain your reference to Macarthur's Capital as I have not been able to track it down. Was "joak" a dig at Victorian pronunciations? Burrobert (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During WW2, General Macarthur ran the war effort from Melbourne. No, I was not commenting on Victorian pronunciations. I can't tell the difference...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the RfC about whether to include Assanges involvement in the releae of the unredacted cables you did not specify *Include or Exclude or whether what you were writing was a comment with Comment. It looks like some people aretaking your list of smears as part of the reasoning in the introduction about the RfC rather than a digression and so dismissing the whole business as not a reliable source. Could you mark your contribution please so this confusion does not arise. NadVolum (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. About edits like this - diff. Please see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and consider using the {{additional citation(s) needed}} template, instead of removing content from an article. Thank you. Renat 07:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the talk page instead of edit warring with poorly rationalized reverts even after your comments are taken into account and well-sourced content is established. Perhaps you are not familiar with the history of this controversy and the subsequent effect on her career, but the Toronto iincident -- precipitated by the objections of the North American Ukrainian community -- is the most notable factor in her life and is properly described and sourced in the article and was appropriately referenced in the lead before your repeated revert. She is not a Gergiev whose worldwide notability is due to other factors. You should also work on improving sources per WP:SOFIXIT. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made an edit to conform the Assange/Rich content accurately to the source. Well and good. But your work has now been reverted and replaced with wording that does not reflect the source. Please reinstate the corrected text you inserted. Otherwise, I am afraid we will need to reconsider the entire matter from scratch and it will lead to a very lenghty discussion with no improvement over the correction you made. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this website which may be of interest to you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Jeffrey Sachs. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.

Please review WP:BLP and note sanctions apply to such articles per WP:ARBBLP. See WP:COI in case it might apply. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article Aaron Maté is now under a 72-hour one-revert restriction for the next month (till 6 December), up from the normal 24-hour restriction in place for all Syrian Civil War articles. This message is being sent to all recent editors of that article, and implies no wrongdoing on your part.

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 the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right-ho thanks for the warning @Tamzin:. Excellent idea regarding the extension to 72 hours. Hopefully it slows down the to-ing and fro-ing in the article. There is a lot going on there at the moment. Burrobert (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your edits to the Aaron Mate page. Because of your revisions, the page is much more balanced. You really improved it. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Venezuelanalysis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted a sourced sentence from the page saying "Source does not say "the channel's close ally in Lebanon is the Shiite group Hezbollah". Could you please read the first sentence of the related source which you removed: A new pan-Arab TV station that went on the air Monday courts viewers who see mainstream coverage of the political upheaval sweeping the Middle East as biased against the regimes in Syria and Iran and their close ally in Lebanon, the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah. This sentence implicitly indicates the alliance between the channel and Hezbollah. So your edit will be reverted. Egeymi (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source prior to making the edit of course. The sentence is talking about " viewers who see mainstream ... ". The sentence is also saying that "the powerful Shiite militant group Hezbollah" is a close ally of "the regimes in Syria and Iran". There is no mention that "the channel's close ally in Lebanon is the Shiite group Hezbollah". Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Comrade Burro!

Salut! Can you give me some help with my new foray re Julian Assange?

I can't work out how to give you access to my sandbox...

Hopefully this will end the perennial debates re hacking, health etc...

Comrade J Jack Upland (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used a sandbox comrade J. Had a quick look at the guide. Adding "left-curly-bracket left-curly-bracket My_sandbox right-curly-bracket right-curly-bracket" to the top of your talk page may point other users to it. Here "left-curly-bracket" = { and "right-curly-bracket" = }. Is this related to your idea of creating a shrine for the oz part of Julian's bio? Burrobert (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your edits to all the things Ive added recently, theyve really helped and the Talk has been good too Softlemonades (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone would change defense back to defence however you are inconsistent in usage. If you're going to do that every time the word is used it must be with a c. You can't use both.Extraordinary2 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the Julian Assange page. I used a script to change the spelling to Oz spelling. Did I miss one of the misspellings? Burrobert (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, the word is used often. Extraordinary2 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

both edits that you thanked me for making in Ukraine on Fire have been reverted and I am inclined to let them go. Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Carptrash, I thought your edits improved the neutrality of the article. I will answer more fully in the section you started on the article's talk page. Burrobert (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		when we dont agree youre always nice, and disagreeing is never a fight Softlemonades (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Mission Housing Venezuela. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Burrobert. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you took out some parts of my edits to Owen Jones' wikipedia page earlier today. One thing I wish to particularly bring up is that you removed some parts of the quotes from the YouTube video as you noted they were not mentioned in the JC source. Those quotes can be found in other sources besides the YouTube video, and they are in the video, however they are only reported in newspapers like the Express. What do you think can be done about this? I feel the quotes you have taken out are very relevant to the case as he explicitly mentions seeing a woman burned alive with her knickers pulled down yet still opts to cast doubt on the possibility sexual crimes occurred, but I am also familiar with Wiki policy re: tabloids (even though in this case the tabloids correctly reported the quote; I have watched the video in full) Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch the YouTube video but assumed that was where the quote appeared. Afaict, YouTube videos can be used as sources but there are restrictions on their use since they are primary sources and self-published sources. Some relevant links are Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, Wikipedia:Video_links, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking, Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. As you noted, and as a number of editors stated on the talk page, the Express is not a suitable source. I don't doubt that the quote you included does appear in the YouTube video. Can I suggest that you include a timestamp for the content when you add a reference to a video. It will make it easier for other editors to verify the content. Regarding Hadley Freeman's article, I couldn't find where your text "dismissing the atrocities inflicted on Israeli civilians by Hamas" came from. She seems to be saying a number of things so I chose her initial comment about the video, assuming it was the most important to her. Anyway, we should have this conversation on Owen's talk page and I would be interested to see the opinions of other editors. Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I just noticed you reverted my edition on Palestine Action's article because I am apparently "not qualifed to edit relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute". what are the qualifications? how was this decided? can I ask other editors to make this change, for example on the article's discussion page? and why am I technically allowed to do this if WPEN's policy is against it? thank you for your reply. GloBoy93 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternooon @GloBoy93:. Thanks for dropping in. I have placed some information on your talk page about editing restrictions related to contentious topics such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. The decision about applying restrictions to particular areas is made by administrators. The policy is not implemented in software, meaning your edits in these areas won't generally be automatically prevented and it is up to editors to detect the edits and remove them if necessary. Yes, you can use the article's talk page to ask other editors to make changes/additions to the page. Burrobert (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for you answer. wow, so it was implemented without community approval? as someone who's rather active on WPFR, this is completely unheard of for me. what does the community think about it? do you have an opinion about it? and is it common practice on WPEN for administrators to make such decisions without community approval? hoping my curiosity isn't overwhelming. GloBoy93 (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited knowledge of the process and have not asked how others feel about the restrictions. I think there is a good reason to place these restrictions on contentious topics since they are most likely to attract interest from new users. The restriction helps ensure that new editors "learn the ropes" before editing in areas where arguments will arise. By the way, you may be interested to know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are a few other things that Wikipedia is not - have a read of the page. Regarding your edit that I removed, it would be worth asking someone on the article's talk page to include it in the article if appropriate. Wasn't it something to do with the group's logo? Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your recent revert; consensus required applies to this article, and I am not seeing a consensus in the informal discussion - particularly since we have a formal consensus to attribute it to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding, while your new version does not do this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you have continued the discussion on the talk page without reverting, does this mean that you are not going to self-revert and I need to take this to WP:AE? BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is consensus on the talk page to provide the context that Nad added. You started the discussion on the talk page under "Removal of Nick Davies and then didn't participate in the discussion in the week and a half during which a consensus was achieved. When that consensus was implemented by Nad, you then re-inserted yourself into the discussion. Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was inactive and didn't have time to participate until today.

I don't see a consensus in that discussion, and certainly not one strong enough to overturn aspects of the recent RfC. Please, self-revert; I would prefer not to have bring this to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We formed a consensus without you and implemented it. The consensus is consistent with the result of the RfC which stated that the alleged quote from Assange should be included within his bio "alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Burrobert. Thank you.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]