KeithCu

Welcome to my talk page:

Here is my home page: http://keithcu.com/

References

Just a note on references that you may not be aware of. When you cite something as you did to George W. Bush, it's good to add more than just the URL.

Just to give you an example:

1. Here is how you cited to the White House Press Release:

<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html]</ref>

If you take a look at the footnote section, you'll see that when you format a cite like this it only appears as a numbered hyperlink and it ruins the professionalism of the article.

2. To improve it, you could cite it like this:

<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html "Enter text here that will show up as the hyperlink"], "insert relevant citation information here."</ref>

3. So, based on the specific link you provided, I would format the cite like this:

<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts], Office of the Press Secretary, March 13, 2001</ref>

I'll go ahead and change them to the article along with edits that I make. Hope this helps. SpiderMMB 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I appreciate that you explain your edits, which is more than most people do. I'm just anti-POV in articles, and these political articles are about the worst with it. Granted, my own POV will come through sometimes too, but I think if everyone contributes in good faith it eventually balances itself out.

Good luck with future editing. SpiderMMB 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

O3000 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KeithCu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think it's crazy I've been permanently blocked!! What's good is it gives me new material to talk about in my updated Wikipedia chapter. Here's the current one: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=597) I'm including my last comment that I wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard. One day there will be enough evidence release (such as the actual FISA warrants) that will make it clear that a lot of people were spied on.

Decline reason:

You may be right about the spying thing or you may not. What concerns me is that you aren't providing assurances that you will edit Wikipedia according to policy and guidelines, as opposed to pursuing your own agenda. In this context, I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

KeithCu (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:PhilKnight I wasn't editing Wikipedia, I was posting in a talk page! I thought there was a difference in standards between talk pages and regular pages (where slander of Dan Bongino by other longtime editors is apparently allowed.)

I have no agenda, unlike other people who simply keep repeating there's no evidence of spying. I would investigate the agenda of people to refuse to admit that a mountain of evidence exist, even while more comes out every day. My agenda is the truth, apparently we are in a tiny minority on the politics portion of Wikipedia, and banning me is easier than fixing Wikipedia falsehoods. KeithCu (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Last Post to Wikipedia:

---

I'm not sure what meatpuppetry is, but no one tells me when to contribute to Wikipedia. I decided to post on the SpyGate talk page because it's amazing to me how there is plenty of publicly available evidence that Trump was spied on, (including a book titled SpyGate) and so it seems unbelievable Wikipedia still calls it a false conspiracy theory. Now, the author of the book (a former cop and secret service agent!) is called a "clown" by longtime Wikipedia editors, and his word is "not to be trusted." That slander keeps them ignorant.

As I wrote on the talk page, imagine if Bush 43 had been wiretapping Obama, and Wikipedia refused to acknowledge it, and only called it a conspiracy theory. You would think you are living in crazy times. The other amazing thing is how many people here are implicitly defending unauthorized surveillance (by saying it didn't happen) and defending the politicization and weaponization of the US intelligence community. The US federal government has committed crimes, and Wikipedia defends democracy by saying it didn't happen. KeithCu (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@PhilKnight:, this was a bad block and a bad unblock request. Do you have evidence of bad edits in mainspace? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir JosephThank you for reviewing my situation! I should have mentioned this point more explicitly in my request to unblock. KeithCu (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, you're invited to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and submit another unblock request if you would like to do so. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Is it necessary for me to submit something for my status to change? I'd really rather not study it right now, and I don't have anything to add. People consider their job to determine if I have an agenda, which involves reading someone's mind, and that is hard to do, and it doesn't surprise me that some people could easily get it wrong when looking at what I wrote. I haven't read any Wikipedia policy in years and so I'd be interested in finding out what the difference in standards is on talk pages versus the content page, and why Breitbart is not considered a reliable source.

Spygate is one of the greatest political scandals in American history, and it makes Watergate seem like a paper cut, so I look forward to the day when Wikipedia reflects that instead of a "false conspiracy theory". I saw the word false was taken away recently. That's a tiny step. Spygate is also a scandal because much of the mainstream media have been endlessly calling it a lie or conspiracy theory. That makes it an even bigger scandal. Why are the media covering up for crimes? Are Wikipedia's "reliable sources" dangerously wrong sometimes? I would hope that the people and companies who lied to us about SpyGate and said it never happened should have their Wikipedia pages reflect, with some sort of Scarlet Letter. Covering up for a crime is almost as bad as the underlying crime. Imagine the media covering up for a massacre by not telling the world what was happening. KeithCu (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to put in another unblock request and "promise to behave," even though the block was a bad block and the admin was 100% wrong, you can't mention that at all. You basically need to grovel and promise to behave, otherwise to admin reading your unblock request will not unblock you, they most likely will not check out the back story or how the admin who blocked you has basically not edited in years and just barged in and blocked you for no reason, so your best bet is just promise to abide by wiki policies. It's the maddening way of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• These post-block comments are concerning enough that a commitment to abide Wikipedia policies is warranted, in my opinion. I'm getting a strong sense of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. By the way, KeithCu, on why Breitbart cannot be used as a reliable source for statements of facts, read its entry on WP:RSP. starship.paint ~ KO 14:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Can you point to one edit of his in mainspace that uses Breitbart? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph - I cannot because I haven’t looked, and I’m going offline so I won’t. However, I never said he used Breitbart in main space. I was responding to his earlier question. I'd be interested in finding out ... why Breitbart is not considered a reliable source. starship.paint ~ KO 15:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PhilKnight in your unblock request, you write that KeithCu isn't "providing assurances that [he] will edit Wikipedia according to policy." Can you point to those edits that are not in compliance with policy, so that I can help KeithCu avoid falling out of policy in the future? To KeithCu, Wikipedia information is drawn from reliable sources - WP:RS. Even though some of us think the article needs some major corrections, if reliable sources do not carry that information that we can't add it to Wikipedia. Last year, editors on Wikipedia have also deemed Breitbart an inappropriate source. You and I might be absolutely sure that there was inappropriate behavior from some Obama administration officials, but until a reliable source reports on it, we won't be able to add it to the article. That's just the way it is right now. In my opinion it's more of a failure by the press, which, if the tables were turned, would be ALL OVER this stuff. We should be patient and see what happens. If you are right, it will come out eventually. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Those edits which pushed the Breitbart source were not in accordance with policy. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Which of these diff, diff, diff, diff diffs violate Wiki policy? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

PhilKnight, which policy was violated? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources which is a guideline, so I've modified my decline. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

PhilKnight, editors are allowed to discuss the use of sources on talk pages. Especially if they are not aware that Breitbart has been deprecated as a source. I see no evidence that KeithCu was made aware of this before the indef. Thanks for modifying your decline, I guess, but it doesn't change anything, nor make your original decline any more acceptable. There's no evidence of main space or article disruption, and a handful of talk page comments on a much disputed article are no indication of NOTHERE. Mr Ernie (talk)

PhilKnight, you still haven't answered my question. Which of his diffs, violated policy or guidelines? His edits on the talkpage did not violate any policy or guideline. The block was bad and your decline is even worse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

They all did. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

as an admin, you are going to have to do better than that. Please explain how his diffs violate policy and guidelines, and please keep in mind that he posted 4 times in total on a talk page. You are just perpetuating bias of Wikipedia.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph - I'm not an admin but here is my view. [1] is WP:OR and WP:V, since no reliable sources were provided to refute the claim that current reliable sources are wrong. [2] is WP:RS, I assume the Bongino book is the source of most of the mainstream media have been lying about this for 2 years, and calling the truth a conspiracy theory, if it's not, then it's also WP:OR and WP:V. [3], about Too many here clearly live in the mainstream media bubble ... Is it just a coincidence that so many here refuse to admit crimes by those agencies?, violates WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:OR. [4] violates WP:RS, WP:AGF. starship.paint ~ KO 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• it's talk page edits, not main space edits. Are we now going to enforce those policies on the talk pages for all editors? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Sir Joseph: - even when they were talk page edits, there's still a clear problem there. Probably not an indef block in my opinion, but very concerning. Yes, if other editors are reaching this level of policy and guideline violation, there should be some sort of enforcement. But I'm not an admin, I wouldn't know if that is viable. starship.paint ~ KO 01:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've not used Breitbart as a source in many years (if at all), and my comments about Breitbart were just brief points in the talk page. I wanted to talk about SpyGate and suddenly Breitbart was brought up by other people and told something like it's a 100% conspiracy theory site, etc. It triggered me to say a few words. I may read / study the page one day and perhaps even attempt to refute some of it in my own writings. I have been reading Breitbart sometimes for years and found it way ahead of the filtered big media and accurate enough. I can perfectly follow rules I haven't read, or even instinctually disagree with.

Mr Ernie: You are true that we should be patient, and the truth will come out eventually. However, as you probably know, most of the mainstream media have been calling Trump's spying allegations: lies, without evidence, a conspiracy theory, etc. for 2 years. I don't think they will ever stop doing that about basically everything he says. They will just quit talking about SpyGate one day. The media sometimes admit when they are wrong, but this one is probably too big to truly admit failure on. "Sorry we lied to you for 2 years about SpyGate and Russian collusion, and 1000 other things!" They will just have a new "big" scandal to discuss. starship: I will check out the "RightGreatWrongs" page when I have time also. Thank you for the link. KeithCu (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, having reviewed the 4 diffs above, and being aware that KeithCu has made less than 500 edits, I would not support an indefinite block. I would support a second chance for KeithCu to learn more about how Wikipedia works. However, KeithCu has to tread very carefully to not make the same mistakes. Comments like The media sometimes admit when they are wrong, but this one is probably too big to truly admit failure on. above are not helpful to his case. If he thinks every single reliable source can't be trusted, how can he edit Wikipedia properly? If he's taking Breitbart as more reliable than the the filtered big media and accurate enough we have a big problem here. starship.paint ~ KO 00:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think every reliable source is not to be trusted on every issue, but the vast majority have been very wrong on this. I've been reading Breitbart occasionally for 10 years. I'm happy to respect your collective decision not to use it, even while I have a difference of opinion. I do happen to think a lot of the media lie a lot, in the US and every country. The media are supposed to be watchdogs of democracy, instead of covering up for crimes. I realize some of what I write might seem problematic, but I consider media lies to be one of the biggest ongoing problems in the world, and a crises that goes back decades. SpyGate is a great case study. All those media lies in one place would sink the Titanic. However, these are personal opinions, I mostly keep to myself.

I think Wikipedia is great, and I'm glad to have a few new constructive things to discuss, research, and possibly write about. I first wrote about Wikipedia in 2006-2008 and never followed in details the big changes since then. I never worried about getting banned but losing the right for all time was surprising and actually upsetting. I haven't contributed a lot, but I've found obvious mistakes I've fixed that have made Wikipedia better. It's empowering to be able to edit Wikipedia if necessary while reading it. It takes millions of people to polish this diamond. I also realized that I didn't write a good unblock request. This has been an interesting experience and I appreciate all that I've learned and given things to read and research. I've put them on a list for later. KeithCu (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• The point is, even if you personally think the reliable sources are wrong, Wikipedia's stance is that Wikipedia simply reports what reliable sources say. We call them reliable sources because as a community, we achieved consensus that they have a reputation of fact checking and accuracy, even if you may disagree. Frankly, if Reliable Source 1 is wrong, and Reliable Source 2 reports that Reliable Source 1 is wrong, then I would write both stances into an article. But if the vast majority of reliable sources report something, Wikipedia has to take the majority viewpoint (as well as significant minority viewpoints). Fringe theories have little to no place on Wikipedia. I understand that being indeffed is upsetting, and I hope you can change your attitude after reading the policy/guidelines/essays, so that you can edit properly. starship.paint ~ KO 01:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't been using Breitbart on Wikipedia. I'm still allowed to read it sometimes, and that's what I care about. I never used to care about my right to edit Wikipedia until I lost it. I mention it was upsetting also to explain why I was a little rude ;-) I agree fringe theories should have little place in Wikipedia. However in this case, the fringe theory is that Trump was not spied upon. (There's more evidence showing he was spied upon than he wasn't.) The media saying 100 times he wasn't spied upon isn't evidence of anything. Unfortunately, the current thrust of the Spygate page is to push the "fringe" theory with less evidence. KeithCu (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• I never said you used Breitbart, just cautioning you. You are free to read it. However, if the media says 100 times he wasn’t spied upon, then it certainly seems like the mainstream view, not a fringe view. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• On the Spygate page, the Spygate allegations of May 2018 is that there was a spy IN Trump’s campaign spying for political purposes to help Clinton win, and that the spy was paid lots of money for it. This is depicted as a conspiracy theory by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• It is not clear that “Trump was spied upon” is Spygate. This is not the majority view of the reliable sources, in my opinion right now it isn’t even a significant minority view among reliable sources provided. People need to provide more sources on this explicitly mentioning Spygate. If you think XYZ is Spygate, source it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If 100 people say I've never been shot, but I have a bullet hole in my arm, which evidence is more definitive? I realize Wikipedia is in a tough position right now, but that the media said 100 times Trump wasn't spied upon means there are (probably) two scandals.

Unfortunately, I'm not great at providing evidence for SpyGate because almost none of my sources of news/information constitute a Wikipedia reliable source. The FISA warrants are still classified, I believe. I got much of my knowledge about SpyGate from podcasts, random YouTube interviews like this with Tony Shaffer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04CQvULROBo), etc. There are a few NYT articles discussing the FISA process, and other places as well, but those articles underplay the web of crimes. KeithCu (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Here for example is the first NYT article which discussed the spying: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html However, note that it doesn't mention the two-hop rule, and is ambiguous about various things. For that, you have to go to a source which is unreliable by Wikipedia standards: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop There are a lot of people in media and government who would rather all Americans not realize that everyone within 2 hops of Carter Page was spied on, etc. Even then the big media tell the truth about SpyGate, they carefully avoid telling the most scandalous facts. KeithCu (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Keith you are not helping your case. It is not about the truth or what you know, whether it is a bullet hole or a political policy. It is ONLY about what reliable sources say, if you can not accept that, you will be constantly fighting here on Wikipedia and you should not be unblocked. Only you know whether you can put up with having a minority opinion in regard to the sources considered reliable by Wikipedia. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I of course understand why Wikipedia articles can only reference reliable sources. However, a human being should never quit being interested in learning "the truth" just because it's not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Once "the truth" is known, then reliable sources could be researched to piece it together. I can't find a reliable source for the 2 hop information -- yet. But one day it may be discussed. It's nice to know what is really going on first because it can help to understand the big picture when grabbing together snippets from reliable sources, and make better sense of any doubletalk in the big media. KeithCu (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "fighting" on Wikipedia. I appreciate the chance to discuss important and controversial topics with longtime Wikipedia people. I fully understand Wikipedia is nothing without standards for RS and I believe that Wikipedia did its best in deciding to ban Breitbart. I'm happy to find any potential big mistakes in Wikipedia to write about ;-) If anyone wants to tell me of any bigger problems Wikipedia has today, I'd be happy to research them also. I think the edits I've made to Wikipedia articles were helpful, defensible and mostly not controversial. I believe unreliable sources are sometimes allowed on Talk pages and I think it would be terrible if that rule ever changed. KeithCu (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

KeithCu, IP 209 is correct in their above post. You definitely need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I'm going to give you a example. If 100 reliable sources say you were left-handed, and that is the majority view, Wikipedia reports "KeithCu is left-handed", this satisfies WP:Verifiability. If I visit you and see you writing only with your right hand, I cannot report it here, as I am not a reliable source, and that would be textbook WP:Original research. If you say you are right-handed, that may be included, as a primary source: "KeithCu is left handed, but KeithCu says they are right handed". starship.paint ~ KO 01:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

starship Thank you for the explanation / reminder! I've learned and tried to follow those rules for 12 years. I could go through them again but I don't think I've broken them on article changes yet. Unverifiable statements, some unreliable sources and original research are allowed on talk pages, correct?

Wikipedia article text is at best, a subset of the truth, the subset found in RS. Hopefully it isn't the opposite of the truth because editors refuse to consider compelling information in non-reliable sources. I thought that was the problem for the first sentence of SpyGate, so I decided to post on the talk page. I am generally very modest in the changes I make to Wikipedia articles, only trying to fix anything easily provably wrong. If I see a big difference between what is verifiable and true, that's a hard problem -- for someone else ;-) I am grateful for others who try. KeithCu (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Unverifiable statements, some unreliable sources and original research are allowed on talk pages, correct? - I'm not sure whether there is a rule in all cases to forbid this, but definitely not if they violate WP:BLP, and if you bring these up even away from mainspace, you will damage your own credibility on Wikipedia such that you appear to have no WP:COMPETENCE, and damage the credibility of the content you are proposing. starship.paint ~ KO 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think someone else has already told you - if you find content in unreliable sources that is noteworthy, you should search reliable sources to find that same content if you want to insert it on Wikipedia. You can simply Google for that content by adding one of the following: "Reuters" / "AFP" / "Associated Press" / "BBC" / "Al Jazeera" / "Bloomberg" / "NPR" etc into the search bar. Or, you can use Google News but not every publication there will be reliable. starship.paint ~ KO 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)