Jaygo113

July 2021

Hello, I'm Ts12rAc. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to May 19th Communist Organization—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 18:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

my edits represent a far more accurate description of the group, which hijacked an airplane. thats very constructive, and its a terrorist act. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Weather Underground. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

its not a personal point of view. It is cited in the article already. Check Yourself. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 (Steele)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christopher Steele. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

i'm not. I cited my source. The Washington Post claimed it Jaygo113 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?tid=usw_passupdatepg Jaygo113 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Selectively leaving out that Steele was first hired by the Washington Free Beacon. The edit was not neutral, don't do it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

it was completely neutral. it was reported by the Washington Post. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

this article currently selectively leaves out the involvement of the Clinton Campaign. that violates the neutral viewpoint requirement more than anything. Jaygo113 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

its not in the introduction,

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

The fact that he was hired by the Clinton Campaign and made these allegations against her political opponent is a notable controversy.

MOS:LEAD Jaygo113 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

or rather, working on behalf of Jaygo113 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain what all is going on here, but I do see a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is about Steele, not the dossier. The Steele dossier article is linked, and that's where all this is documented. What you're trying to add is not at all new, surprising, or very informative. It's very old news. We have known this for many years.

Regardless of that, don't edit war, no matter how right you might be. When another editor reverts you, that means there is an objection, and you are not supposed to keep editing on that point without first seeking to resolve the matter. The procedure is described at WP:BRD. You shouldn't have restored the content that was deleted. You should have started a discussion on the article's talk page and continued until a consensus was reached. I don't see any point in adding that content. -- Valjean (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You may not see a point, but thats akin to the Lee Harvey Oswald article only calling him JFK's assassin and not mentioning how he did it in the intro, which it does. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article is where that is documented, so why would it be in the LHO article intro as well?

its a precise analogy Jaygo113 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

on top of that, if the article is about Christopher Steele, why does the paragraph about the claims made by Trump and his supporters remain? that would also be covered in the Steele Dossier article. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Assata's Daughters

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Assata's Daughters. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

if the Black Panther Party (who's ideology this group themselves claim to have adopted) and Assata Shakur (Who they named themselves after and claim as their other ideological and name influence) are both considered to be part of the Series on Black Power, why are you removing it? also, none of what I added was a viewpoint, it's established fact and I cited that. Jaygo113 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The personal viewpoints and analysis this notice refers to were, for example, in the wikilinks I removed here. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1. ok, so it seems there is some incongruity between what is displayed on the desktop vs. the app.

2. The Wikilinks are also literally the definitions of those views. Take the call for "True History" for example. The implication is that the accepted version of history is false, and that a different, non-canon/unorthodox form of history is true. That is called "Historical Revisionism." That isnt a personal viewpoint.

niether is the call for ALL Black Men to he released from prison. That is skin color based discrimination because it calls for all of them based on skin color. it doesnt list exceptions based on crimes. The only criteria they list in their call for the release of the prisoners is skin color. Again, not a personal view. Jaygo113 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Standard notice of discretionary sanctions

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.

Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate Edit Summaries

Hi Jaygo113. I have noticed that you sometimes use innocuous edit summaries that do not accurately reflect the extent or nature of the changes you have made. Other times you do not use edit summaries at all.

Examples of bad edit summaries:

• "‎Fixed typo" - Not a fix to a typo but a substantial change to the meaning of the sentence.
• "Added links" - Removed a lot more links than it added
• "Fixed grammar" - Not a fix to grammar at all but a change to the links.

Whether this is your intention or not, this creates the impression that you are trying to evade detection when making what you should know to be controversial changes and I must ask you to please be much more careful in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

March 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruptive removal of material, as you did at Anti-gender movement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 19:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Penny Morales Shaw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have previously warned you about dishonesty in edit summaries. I am now warning you about dishonesty more generally. You accused a Democratic politician of being a member of a Communist party. You tried to hide your lack of any evidence for this by referencing an article that didn't even mention her. This was not an accident. You hoped that nobody would check the reference to see if it actually supported your claim. You seem to think that we are idiots. We are not idiots. DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Kvetching and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Doug Weller the link was to an article with a video in which the Communist Party of Houston claimed she was a member in 2018. Clearly you are not upset about evidence but the fact that you dont like the allegations because shes a Democrat. Your response is very telling, you are using wikipedia so you can to sanitize unflattering or untruthful things about far-left politicians and ideology. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @Doug Weller Penny Morales Shaw also addressed a meeting of the Houston Communist Party in July 2018. You're just burying your head in the sand so you can say you dont see it. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @Doug Weller the fact that you are whining about a different article and then chasing me on another one leads me to believe that you acting with Malice. Removing things that aren't viewpoint neutral is allowed. You are strictly trying to promote Left Wing misinformation. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @Doug Weller as for Ms. Shaw, there are photos of her at the Houston Communist Party event. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @Doug Weller but you failed to mention anything from this article. You're obsessed with me and with keeping up the image of the Far-Left. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @DanielRigal this all goes for you. Also, you are not an American, dont try to tell me that a Democrat and a Communist cannot be the same person. left wing ideaa are put into practice through the Democratic Party as right wing ideas are put into practice through the Republican Party. I am not an idiot, and I am actually an American who knows what he's talking about. Jaygo113 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Stop pretending not to understand the problem. The problem is that you are deliberately inserting content that is not supported by the sources you use. You have also used dishonest edit summaries to try to cover your tracks. You think that you are slick but you are not remotely slick. People (of multiple nationalities, not that that matters) can see what you are doing and they are not falling for it. You need to pack it in or your next block is likely to be an indefinite one. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @DanielRigal I'm doing nothing of the sort. My edit summaries haven't been the least bit dishonest, you just dont like the fact that they're true. I checked the article on Morales Shaw, the article comes from the Communist Party itself. It actually DOES mention her. That means you lied in this very thread. You sound like a wild conspiracy theorist, accusing me of being part of some plot to dishonestly edit the internet. "you think that you are slick?" how self aggrandizing you must be to think that you are the arbiter of truth, when YOUR allegations have been completely false. Nationality does seem to matter. If you were an American, maybe you would better understand the political system. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @DanielRigal your own talk page displays your ideological bias, especially on gender related issues. This is a purely political issue for you. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @DanielRigal your bias on the subject of the article at hand. Also, you didnt mention why the opinion article I removed was wrong, because it isnt. You just labeled it vandalism, and screamed about another article you were wrong about. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC) @DanielRigal your twitter page confirms my suspicions. you cannot be trusted with the truth. Jaygo113 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've extend your block to a week and removed your talk page access. If you continue in the same vein when you return, you will be indef blocked. You can appeal your block at WP:UTRS. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I was in the process of drafting a request for an indefinite block at ANI but I'm content to drop that and see how this shakes out. DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2022 (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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 09:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia investigation origins counter-narrative

@Valjean why did you edit out all my verified information? Jaygo113 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have given this a heading. You did several things. Your first two edits were very different, and I didn't "edit out all" of it.

I kept part of the first edit and improved it, but I also restored a deletion you made, and a very serious one at that. You deleted "identified as a conspiracy theory". It is a fact that it is identified as a conspiracy theory because that's what it is. It is Trump's attempt to cover his ass by spreading lies about the origins of the investigation. There were myriad legitimate reasons to start the investigation, and they were the fault of Trump and his campaign. It was not a witch hunt. He was and still is a national security threat.

I deleted the second edit (after restoring the original) as it was mostly off-topic and even false. The dossier had nothing/zilch/zero to do with the opening of the Russia investigation. The FBI got it several months after opening the investigation. It did have a central role with the FISA warrant on Carter Page, but that's a different topic than this article. The dossier's central role was important, but very small, like the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back." The FBI was already, based on totally different sources, at the 50% balance point to considering if they should apply for a FISA warrant or not. They just hadn't done it yet. Some leaders in the FBI have said that even without the dossier they probably would have done it. The reception of the dossier several months after the start of the investigation gave them the 1% more suspicion they needed to push them "over the line" into deciding to apply for that warrant. It ended up being a mistake, but they couldn't know that at the time. Carter Page was acting very suspiciously and had done so for several years, and he lied under oath about it. There are still justifiable suspicions that he's a Russian agent.

As to the funding of the dossier, that is no secret. All political campaigns fund their opposition research, and the dossier was part of their oppo research, but they didn't use it effectively before the election when it would have done some good. That's because they couldn't quickly verify so much of it, even though much has been verified later. We have known about the funding for several years, and we document it in several different articles, especially the Steele dossier article. It is not a big deal. Since the dossier had nothing to do with triggering the Russia investigation, that information is irrelevant in this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

wow so you clearly made your edits based on your own political bias instead of based on factual information? that makes this article no longer viewpoint neutral. Jaygo113 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, any biases I have are based on the RS we use in our articles. The sources are there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

you cannot say the dossier had nothing to do with the opening of the investigation when Inspector General Horowitz aaid that it did. I even cited my source on that. Jaygo113 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, read the source again. It was about the FISA warrant, not the investigation: “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

who are you to say the role of the dossier was very small? IG Horowitz CLEARLY said it was CENTRAL to opening the investigation. Jaygo113 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Because I have read the Horowitz report and the FBI reports. They explain what I wrote. That's why it had a central role. I do not deny that. I wrote: "The dossier's central role was important, but very small, like the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back."" Yes, that might be confusing and awkwardly written, but that's how the FBI explains it. Even a small bit of evidence can turn out to be important, and thus "central". The 50% was evidence they already had, and they wrote that the dossier was just enough to "push them over the line". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the report has no bearing and cannot be used to edit Wikipedia. I also know for a fact you changed the verification that the Dossier was paid for by the DNC and the part where its main subsource was arrested for lying to the FBI. Yet you reverted to the debunked claims that those were only a theory. Jaygo113 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide RS for your assertions. I'm tired of dealing with your ignorance of the sources and your pushing of Trump's conspiracy theories. I'll respond to what RS say. Provide them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ignorance? I'm the one who posted updated links from verified news sources to prove my assertions and kept it viewpoint neutral. You have done the precise opposite. You have shown that your edits are made based off your personal political leanings, with absolutely no regard for truth or neutrality. Jaygo113 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Context matters. In this case, even your properly sourced content, no matter how good, was off-topic and therefore had to be removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's reboot and be more careful. We're "talking past each other" and misunderstanding each other. Therefore we need to hold us to exact quotes and ask for clarification.

You write: "...you changed the verification that the Dossier was paid for by the DNC and the part where its main subsource was arrested for lying to the FBI. Yet you reverted to the debunked claims that those were only a theory." Below I will refer to that quote:

1. What do you mean by "changed the verification"?
2. The fact that the dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign is a fact I do not deny or hide. It just isn't relevant for this article.
3. That one of its sources was arrested is also a fact I do not deny or hide. It just isn't relevant for this article.
4. You write: "reverted to the debunked claims that those were only a theory." What do you mean by that?

When you reply, please use the numbers. That will make it easier for us to communicate effectively without confusion. We should deal with each point separately. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

i didnt minsundertand when you said "its just Trump covering his ass for his lies" when none of the articles I cited were about that Jaygo113 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Well, strictly speaking, the article is about that. The article is about Trump's "counter-narrative", and we know that's why he lies about the matter. But now we're getting off the issue of communicating better. I quoted you and asked what you mean. Please provide clarification. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

the article is not about "Trump's" anything, his name isn't even in the title. It is about the investigation into the people behind the Russia allegations and the investigations into them. Many of the allegations were proven to be true, as the articles I added accounted for. It is no longer a theory once it has been proven. I showed that many of the claims were in fact proven, and then you vandalized the article based on your own political beliefs. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, then that might explain the confusion. No, the article is about Trump's "counter-narrative" about the "origin" of the "Russia investigation". It's very much about Trump, his campaign, and his conservative GOP supporters. They push a false counter-narrative, a conspiracy theory, that makes many false claims of what triggered the Russia investigation in an attempt to whitewash the involvement of Trump and his campaign in aiding and cooperating with the Russians in their election interference. Therefore this counter-narrative is an attack on the Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)). They paint it as a witchhunt and unjustified investigation of Trump and his campaign. In spite of the proven myriad secretive and improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials, the ones they always lied about, they still claim the investigation was unjustified and that they did nothing wrong.

It's as if you haven't read and believed the article's reliable sources. You write: "It is about the investigation into the people behind the Russia allegations and the investigations into them." No, not at all. It is about Trump's false claims about them and the investigations. There are other articles about the investigations. This one is about Trump's false claims, so I have just added that to the lead, since it is explained in the body. Here is the current lead. Read each of the articles that are wikilinked.

The Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, identified as a conspiracy theory, concerns claims and attacks by Donald Trump and conservatives designed to undermine the legitimacy and conclusions of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as well as the subsequent Special Counsel investigation into links between Russian officials and associates of Donald Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

From now on, let's only discuss this at the article's talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent edits show that you are treating Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:NPA and WP:INCIVILITY. Comment on content, not contributors. You've left far too many messages and too many pings on one talk page. Andre🚐 01:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan ok but when a contributor has content on his page that states "Donald Trump is a Lunatic" and then he is the one editing all the Articles about Trump to make them completely one sided, there is a problem. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan his whole userpage is covered with anti-Trump content and says Obama is one of his heroes. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Those quotes about Trump being a lunatic, are from the founder of Wikipedia, but regardless, editors are allowed to have some personal opinions on their user pages, as long as they don't insert them into articles. The articles as far as I can tell are quite fair and not one-sided, but if you have specific concerns, you may discuss them. But you can't attack editors personally. Andre🚐 01:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan scroll down further to the "Fact Checking Trump" part. he literally cited an Opinion article as his source for Citations 71 and 53. Seriously. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's his own user page, so he is allowed to cite opinion articles as long as he sticks to the guidelines for article content. Even some discussion on a talk page of opinion articles is fine. Andre🚐 01:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan i have proof that he isnt. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AJaygo113#c-Valjean-2022-06-14T16%3A32%3A00.000Z-Jaygo113-2022-06-14T15%3A59%3A00.000Z?wprov=sfla1 Jaygo113 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Valjean

June 14th 2022 11:32 AM

"I have given this a heading. You did several things. Your first two edits were very different, and I didn't "edit out all" of it.

I kept part of the first edit and improved it, but I also restored a deletion you made, and a very serious one at that. You deleted "identified as a conspiracy theory". It is a fact that it is identified as a conspiracy theory because that's what it is. It is Trump's attempt to cover his ass by spreading lies about the origins of the investigation. There were myriad legitimate reasons to start the investigation, and they were the fault of Trump and his campaign. It was not a witch hunt. He was and still is a national security threat" Jaygo113 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a better diff. So what's the problem with what I wrote on your talk page (not in an article)? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean you have blatant political biases, (take 1 look at your talk page) and you dont edit in good faith. You literally reverted changes to articles because they didnt fit your fringe theories. (You called the former President a threat to national security as part of your reasoning.) You are not objective, you dont deal with facts, you dont discuss ways to improve articles, and you used my talkpage as a way to soapbox your views WP:TPNO Jaygo113 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andre🚐 02:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Don’t use talk pages to attack the subject

Particularly when the subject is a living person. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Jaygo113, back in March you avoided getting indefinitely blocked by the skin of your teeth. People were exceptionally kind to you despite your abusive behaviour. You were clearly told that your next block was likely to be indefinite. Since then you have made several highly questionable edits to controversial articles and, somehow, gotten away with it. I think you have got the wrong message here. You seem to think that you can do as you please. This is not the case. If you think that making unsubstantiated allegations against a Holocaust survivor, as you did here, is compatible with you staying on Wikipedia then you are very, very much mistaken. So, lets make this official...

This is your final warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Irene Zisblatt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you make any further defamatory statements, personal attacks or behave disruptively either on articles or talk pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal so you're threatening me instead of looking into the subject matter in question? how does that contribute to Wikipedia? Jaygo113 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

saying something on a talk page isnt vandalism. Vandalism is something that is done to articles. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism is a perfectly real thing. The final warning stands. DanielRigal (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal quit harassing me. I get this is a touchy subject for you but it doesnt mean you can just harass me. Jaygo113 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fringe nonsense

Stop posting fringe nonsense like you just did at Talk:Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Now you have to defend it with RS. WP:Advocacy of fringe opinions is not allowed here, and that includes all talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean you again, stop harassing me. read the Durham report. Jaygo113 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean you're not even American and you're trying to say a federal U.S. Attorney's report on his investigation is fringe? Jaygo113 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm very American. It is your views and interpretations that are fringe. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this but I will remind you that you are still on final warning over your previous bad behaviour. I see no attempt at constructive editing from you, just bouncing from talk page to talk page trying to cause trouble. Keep this up and you are very likely to get blocked per WP:NOTHERE. DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Andre🚐 21:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Andre🚐 22:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan i cite the most reliable source possible, from DOJ, and you close the discussion? does the DNC pay your bills? Jaygo113 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The DOJ is a WP:PRIMARY source. Please read up on WP policy before you add this again. We need reliable SECONDARY sources for analysis. Durham is an obvious unreliable narrator as he was a politcal appointee of the Trump admin. Andre🚐 22:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Durham was appointed by Bill Barr, who recently warned of a 'horror show' and 'chaos' if Donald Trump wins in 2024. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/07/bill-barr-donald-trump-2024/70192252007/

Further, Robert Mueller's Mueller report, the source document, is cited all over wikipedia, especially on the Mueller Report Page, and Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who was himself a political appointee of the Trump Administration. Jaygo113 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Mueller report itself is a primary source, it cannot be cited for analysis or conclusions, but its conclusions as referenced by secondary sources may be cited. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS, furthermore, Barr is also a Republican and a Trump appointee, as was Rosenstein. You're not making any argument that makes this different. Durham must be filtered through the cold hard light of journalists that are reliable. Andre🚐 23:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Which journalists? The ones that promoted the Jussie Smollett story? I see a lot of CNN and MSNBC Citations. They both lied their asses off about that one. And about Russian Collusion. Which "reliable" journalists are your speaking of? Jaygo113 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP WP:RS Andre🚐 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan check the Mueller Report page then, its literally FULL of primary source citations. Jaygo113 (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Again they may be used carefully, where appropriate, where attributed, not for analysis and conclusions. They can be quoted in the appropriate context and properly contextualized if you have good secondary sources, ideally academic sources such as books and journal articles Andre🚐 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)