User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 16

Edit conflict

Yes sorry, I wasn't aware of the edit conflict. That was not intentional. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Denny: - it's alright starship.paint (edits | talk) 03:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

It may not be that particular reddit page you posted, but I do not doubt that there is some forum somewhere that is behind this activity. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Muboshgu - what about this one - [1] - 15 hours ago, 5000+ upvotes, 280+ comments. This is a big story on r/the_donald. starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bingo! That's pretty clear evidence. I did submit this to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Would it be overkill to go to WP:AN/I too? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: - your choice. I don't hang around in those areas a lot, so I don't know. starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• When I filed this for oversight, I had a feeling but no evidence. You found paydirt. Now I feel confident calling out some accounts publicly. I'll need you to chime in though. You'll get pinged. Great work. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - I've got more. Did you see my post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Recent_possible_meatpuppetry_by_/r/the_donald See links 7/8/9/10 starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, no, I hadn't seen that yet. They sure have been an active bunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: - you can match the spikes in new editors / returning editors to the Spygate article to the dates of the recent highlights of the Wikipedia page on Spygate on there starship.paint (edits | talk) 04:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to take it to AN/I and then call it a night. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Many have watched as wikipedia has morphed into the largest purveyor of fake history the world has ever known. So very few have noticed, even fewer have cared. A Big Thank You for bringing the truth to light. -moe/Canada Moefuzz (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Moefuzz - thanks, although I’m not sure you would have given me this barnstar had you known how much of the Spygate article was written by me. Still, I am committed to reflect the reporting of reliable sources on the matter - if reliable sources give alternate definitions, we need to discuss how to include them. starship.paint (edits | talk) 01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: - thank you for granting me this, and thank you for your effort in monitoring my contributions. I acknowledge that this is only for reverting vandalism, and I've tested it out. Frankly, I hope I won't have to use it. I guess we'll see if that it really the case XD starship.paint (edits | talk) 10:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I bet it'll come in handy more than you want it to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Spygate 2

The NY Times article is an op-ed of her original article-breaking the news that Trump was being spied(it is a synonym for counter intelligence) upon by the federal government. That is the start of Spygate. First step-Trump is crazy no one is wiretapping him! Second step-oh yes he is being wiretapped for his own good. To Trump now explicitly accusing Strozk and Page and hundreds of others of treason-that's not related to Spygate!

Having been here since day 10-seeing the mass exodus of editors-I get it. Left wing cabal encyclopedia. Even by those standards-The Spygate page is embarrassing.

The goalposts went from "no one is spying on Trump" to unless Obama is convicted of treason, Spygate is a hoax. BTW I noticed 99% of you edits were during what most people consider the work week. You may want to hide that better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• 71, WP:Original research. If a reliable source says, "Louise's article is the start of Spygate", then Wikipedia can report it on Spygate. If a reliable source says, "Trump accuses 100 people of treason due to Spygate", then Wikipedia can report it on Spygate. I don't know what you exactly mean by the work week thing, if you're insinuating I'm a paid editor, you're wrong unfortunately, plus I'm not even American so I don't have a stake in the matter, I just edit out of interest, and for free, independent of any instruction. starship 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Lots of retired people edit Wikipedia, and we do it during "working hours", whatever that means. The time is rather irrelevant since it can be happening from anywhere and any time zone on Earth. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to Starship.paint for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. Your work is very much appreciated. A true wikipedian! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: - thank you. Frankly, I need tireless persistence off-wiki. LOL. starship 23:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Our comments on Mueller Report.

Hello,

I noticed your edit and you were correct. I wasn't too sure per my comment I added right by the info. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mueller_Report&oldid=prev&diff=893302687

Thank you for the clarification! :) Aviartm (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Check my most recent edit on Mueller Report. I tried to tag you in the description of the edit but it did not work. Aviartm (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Aviartm - you need to source that, please find one. The current AP source doesn't say that. starship 02:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Done. I think the AP source does work; "While the special counsel declined to prosecute Trump on obstruction of justice, he did not exonerate him, all but leaving the question to Congress...“The responsibility now falls to Congress,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has the power to launch impeachment proceedings." And as the article says, the special counsel adhered to "an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial;[21][22][23] fear that charges would affect Trump's governing and possibly preempt impeachment;[19][22][24] and fairness concerns for accusing Trump of a crime with no charge and no trial." Aviartm (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - nah AP doesn't. AP says Mueller is leaving to Congress to take action. AP doesn't say what action or authority it is. That Mother Jones article does not, too. Mueller is not going so far as to call for impeachment proceedings. But he is stating that Congress has the authority to determine whether Trump’s activities constitute a violation of the Constitution. Plus WP:RSP - people consider Mother Jones biased. starship 03:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: [2] Vox Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report explicitly says Congress should be the body that determines whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. - does not mention impeachment in the report. AP [3] It’s now up to Congress to decide what to do with special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings about President Donald Trump. They all quote Mueller as saying Congress can decide and take action, but never mention what exactly the action is.starship 04:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I understand all of these concerns.

Let's think this through. As the lead says "Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial;[21][22][23] fear that charges would affect Trump's governing and possibly preempt impeachment;[19][22][24] and fairness concerns for accusing Trump of a crime with no charge and no trial."

Ok, so the special counsel cannot charge President Trump; this is precedent. The final report states: "we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice...The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Since the special counsel cannot charge a sitting President, the special counsel in its final report is stating that if Congress so wishes to take action, it will be through "our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." The only "checks and balances" that Congress has in regards to the constitutionality of a President's actions is impeachment. And it is not the special counsel's authority to state what the next step is. The job was to investigate and present findings. The "final verdict" is up to Congress and by the only means possible for Congress: impeachment proceedings. Aviartm (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Aviartm: - is the only action impeachment? I’m not familiar. Here’s what I think is the problem. Wikipedia’s voice says Mueller says Congress can take action, and action is impeachment. The sources say Mueller says Congress can take action. That’s not the same. So either we need a source which says the only action Congress can take in this scenario is impeachment or a source that says when Mueller said take action, he was referring to impeachment. starship 06:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint I understand and I agree with you. However, I think we would be picking straws trying to find that "just right" article that mentions what it is. Maybe a reliable source with what we need is out there, I just haven't found it yet. And yes, the only constitutional action that Congress can do in terminating a current President is through impeachment. Aviartm (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to your most recent edit that you tagged me. The BBC Source works beautifully for the contexts. Thank you! :) Aviartm (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Aviartm: that's great. I will now have to synchronize it in the body and other articles. starship 06:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint Terrific! :) Aviartm (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint This edit that you tagged me in, I'm going to say that was Psantora. Aviartm (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Threading replies

When someone's comment starts with "*" your reply to it should start with "*:" or (if you want a bullet in front of your own) "**". Following it with ":*" produces invalid markup and is an accessibility problem. The simple rule is: copy the line-starting character(s) of what you are replying to (whether that is "#" or ":" or "*" or "#**:*", or whatever), and add one to the right of it (usually ":", unless there's a good reason to use a bullet).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Okay SMcCandlish, thanks, I was not aware. Though, my head was starting to hurt looking at "#**:*". starship 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  I know! If more people would just reply with a simple added ":" instead of trying to get fancy, we'd have less of that. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I'll try to change too, ha. starship 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Some editors may be confused by a recent change to the editing UI on the mobile Wikipedia app. I know I wanted to leave a short comment yesterday while not at my desk, and did not find how to add the simple "::" threading marks in the app's editing window. — JFG ^talk 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - not me though, I'm not on the app. Thanks! starship 08:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant people who ended up with something like "#**:*" as you mentioned above. — JFG ^talk 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The mobile app doesn't let you type characters like ":" now?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thrice As Nice

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	You have done a great portion of help and maintenance in regards to the more smaller, repetitive tasks for Mueller Report! Aviartm (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You have contributed 25.4% of the Mueller Report so far. You also have the most edits so far of 249+ and counting. Without your consistent, little and large edits, the foundation of the 5 day old page would not be where it is today. Aviartm (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		You, I and Psantora, I'd say have all collaborated one way or another in improving Mueller Report for the better. Us 3 are the top 3 for most edits for the page and that is a huge beneficiary for all readers! Edit: Just for another crazy fact: us 3 contribute 77% of the entire page as of 4/22/2018 08:30 Aviartm (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I have been meaning to reward you some Barnstars for a while but planned on doing it until the vast majority of the Mueller Report foundation was completed and I say so it is now, but since you gave me my very first barnstar, I figured I would reciprocate back ASAP. Aviartm (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - awesome, thank you very much. 3, wowzers. Please don't forget Psantora since you gave me the teamwork barnstar. Also, you already wrote out 11 episodes. But your text says 10 episodes! Need to correct that XD starship 08:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I won't forget about Psantora. I plan on going to his page after this. True I wrote out 11 episodes but the introduction says 10! We do need to clarify which is which as we have been doing on the talk page at Mueller Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs)

@Aviartm: - I leave you to it. I'm quite done with this, LOL. Other off-wiki work is now a priority. Good luck! and thank you again! starship 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Alrighty, lol. Thank you for what you have contributed and I hope to see you around Wikipedia doing what you do best! :) Aviartm (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Very kind of both of you to think of me. Thanks for your help on the article! I appreciate the recognition. - Paul^T+/_C 18:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Psantora! Thank you for your help on the page! :) Aviartm (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources in the lead section

Probably you are already aware of this, but regarding your comment about wanting items in a lead to be sourced, I wonder if you are aware that Wikipedia does not necessarily require citations in lead sections, per MOS:CITELEAD. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof: - I am indeed aware. But in this article, we already cite stuff in the lede, probably because people want to cite the primary source of the Mueller report, and probably also people want to cite a secondary source to demonstrate importance. Of course, simple statements of fact are less likely to require a source. But for what I asked to be cited, it definitely seemed more contentious. As such, to have other stuff cited and that sentence uncited, makes the uncited part look questionable, in my view. Either cite everything or nothing in the lede. starship 02:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Apostrophes and the publisher parameter in citations

Hello again. I notice that you used the "publisher" parameter rather than "work" / "website" / "newspaper" in several citations for the Mueller Report article today, for articles on the websites of USA Today, CNN, and NPR. This is contrary to the guidelines for the {{cite web}} template.

You also inserted several "curly" apostrophes, which is contrary to MOS:APOSTROPHE.

It would be nice if you could be more careful about these aspects in the future.

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: - sorry! I thought publisher is for titles without italics and work is for titles with italics. Silly, huh, because I've not read the guidelines and no one's told me this in 7+ years (same for the apostrophes). starship 02:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Barr Letter

I hope and expect to see you at Barr Letter! :) Aviartm (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Gosh darn Aviartm I have other work to do. I'll do some simple copying. starship 03:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Lol. I don't think we should copy and paste and I had some edits conflict with yours but allowed yours to slide and did not copy and paste. I will trim significantly. Aviartm (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - go ahead, and thanks for creating the article! starship 03:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Thank you! And thank you for your contributions. When the topic was brought up about making a page for Barr's Letter, I thought it was too early to call but since the news came out that Mueller commented on it and now Barr's Letter will come under heavy scrutiny by Congress, the time is ripe. (Added now since our edits conflicted just now.) Aviartm (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - there may be an attempt to merge the articles. If they are not re-merged, I think the trimming should be at Mueller Report, not at Barr Letter. starship 03:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Possibly. And agreed. Once I better the Barr Letter, I am going to trim the Barr Letter section at Mueller Report. And I don't think the pages will be merged due to the simple fact that Barr's Letter is essentially going to be in the middle in testimonies by Barr and likely Mueller too. In 36 hours we should get our answer. Aviartm (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - some issues now. If Barr letter is separate, then Mueller report no longer needs content about Barr letter in its lede. Would you get what I'm saying? The lede of the Mueller report now has stuff no longer in the body. starship06:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint No, not really. Reason because is that the Barr Letter is the only official piece of information regarding the obstruction of justice conclusion, which we have already talked about, Barr has the final say since he is the AG. It it still absolutely necessary to have in the lead. On Russian interference, not so much, but obstruction of justice, absolutely. Aviartm (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - as long as you are aware that anything in the lede should be more expanded in the body, then we're fine here, because you removed the Mueller letter/call stuff when trimming the Mueller report article. starship 08:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint I know. And in terms of contents being expounded upon, we are fine. I still do think the Barr letter section of the Mueller Report should be trimmed or else we will just be having identical information here and there. Aviartm (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - which parts would you trim? Are we to have the same info about the Mueller letter/call in the body and in the lede? That's the minimum. starship 08:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Well, the information is find but the amount is the issue I think. Not really cut out anything but minimize contexts if possible as any context that needs to be elaborated should be at Barr Letter. Aviartm (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - I've already minimized context when I could, you can see several one-sentence paragraphs. The only part left to cut, in my view, is Mueller's letter and call itself. starship 09:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paintAnd your edits were at Mueller Report? Aviartm (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm - yes, they are already done, except trimming to Mueller's letter and call itself. starship 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Ok, just clarifying. I'll see what I can do. Aviartm (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paintJust made an edit. Tried to shorten the context about Mueller's letter and phone call with Barr and am unable to. Let's just let it be and focus on the Barr Letter when things start to come up very soon. My edits actually increased the length/context just so the paragraph reads more smoothly. Lol. Aviartm (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikidea, Micronor, and BullRangifer: - check out the new article. starship 03:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent start. Treat this has a real spin off subarticle. Then leave a section in the main article with a summary (you can use the lead for that purpose) and a "main" link to the new article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report–>Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure where to add but I had a feeling when I made the edit that it should probably go to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) but let it be until something occurred. Which you moved the texts over, thanks. Albeit, the info did come from Barr's testimony on May 1st and others but does belong where you moved it. Aviartm (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - no worries. Glad to be of help, and thanks for writing that up. starship 04:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint You're welcome! I also thought that it might've belonged in the Reactions section of the report but thought the title for the heading would be awkward compared to the others. However, the calls for counter investigations amplified after the report came out. So there should be some kind of mention. Aviartm (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - if Republicans called for a counter investigation it can go there. Or in Trump's section. Check if it's in Trump's section, I think I did add something on that. starship 04:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Yes, there is a comment by President Trump about it. And this has me thinking, we don't have Barr's response to the report. Lol. Aviartm (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: - the Barr letter, testimony, press conferences are all responses, aren't they? starship 05:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint True, but I mean more of his own opinion and less of his work as Attorney General. Testimonies would be a Reaction. Ok, that covered my inquiry. Lol. Aviartm (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Signature formatting

Greetings Starship.paint! We happen to be active on several talk pages together these days. I'd be much obliged if you would consider changing the style of your signature: the bold white-on-black "KO" block draws undue attention to your posts, and distracts from your actual user name. In addition, it's unclear that "KO" means "talk to me", or perhaps that's jargon or slang I'm unaware of. In case you decided to use this style in order to quickly track your own contributions to discussions, WP:CUSTOMSIG explains how to make your signature stand out for yourself without imposing a bold style on other readers. Thanks in advance for your consideration. — JFG ^talk 23:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - Hello, thank you for providing that, I have changed my signature for future use. I'm going to leave my past signatures intact though. No, KO does not stand at all for talk or anything like that. starship.paint (edits | talk) 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey man, have you lost weight? You look smaller or something. Anyway, gotta go hulk a man about a dog. Have a great May 4 and I'll see you later (or will I?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk - talk page stalker alert. I used the new signature literally once. Maybe you need a change of paint. Think you should be green. starship.paint (edits | talk) 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I swear I had a conversation like that somewhere recently, but can't find it on my talk page. That goes beyond stalking into Three-Eyed Raven territory. Unless it was you I was talking to, of course. So hard to tell anymore! But yeah, you never know. Maybe it is time to spruce up the ol' gimmick. Are you sure you won't be using your trusty old KO anymore? I could give it a sense of meaning (if you know what I mean). But not if it's too soon (bro code, brutha!). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: No, that wasn't me. I was thinking of Endgame when I suggested that green font, you know? Not going to say more in case I spoil. Nah, it's time to drop KO, WWE's wasted him anyway (just like so many others) and I don't know what you mean ahahaha starship.paint (edits | talk) 03:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Good, because if you did, things would be awkward between us. Anyway, I haven't watched or cared to watch a Marvel movie since Iron Man. Just see clips in ads now; they seem fine. Now that you've told everyone it means Kevin Owens, I don't think I can use it anymore. Best we just remember it as it was, attached to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Now that you've told everyone it means Kevin Owens, - no I didn't (Maybe it was Kassius Ohno)! It was you! It was you all along... starship.paint (edits | talk) 03:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

'member Kintaro Ohki? It's alright, neither do I. Still crazy about Daniel Bryan? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Don't remember Kintaro Ohki at all, much less if he was WWE. Surprised you didn't go for Kenny Omega or Kazuchika Okada. Haven't watched Bryan much, since I pretty much stopped watching WWE, because well, it sucks. starship.paint (edits | talk) 03:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of those New Japan fans who refuses to give anything that's not on a grainy VHS more than 4 1/2 stars. HD killed the business! But yeah, I like those guys far better than Ohki. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, seriously this time, gotta go hulk a man about a dog. It was nice eavesdropping on you. You too, JFG! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! And I learned something about wrestlers' nicknames… — JFG ^talk 08:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And a day after accusing Starship of being an unsettling omniscient being who only seems less powerful than he used to appear and vaguely threatening to steal his gimmick, I learned someone, the day before that, had already yoinked my style.

So at the risk of this notification awakening you from your slumber, oh great recently retired one, I regret to inform that I shall not taking the green (nor orange nor any other colour) for the foreseeable future. But on the bright side, I remembered who I was talking to. You were right to rest assured it was never you all along, but rather a greenseer so green (in a First Men sense, not kizarny) that I can't believe I could've forgotten that mysterious messenger in hindsight. And the "ironic" part is that my identity as a portal through time itself is now the only thing stopping me from succesfully pinging him into your Talk Universe. But maybe, just maybe, with our powers combined, we can Captain Planet up some "epic and random" meeting of like-minded contributors from distant points in the Wikigalaxy that doesn't revolve around a dark pit loudly sucking hard enough to swallow up the entire sum of human knowledge forever. I'm not talking about the Night King, I'm talking about the commander of the whole bloody Seven Kingdoms! (New York, Amarillo, Dallas, Kansas City, Orlando, Atlanta and NWA Hollywood).

Anyway, before this gets rambly and too full of seemingly disconnected crossover characters, I'll bid you a fond good journey, urge you to check out User:GreenMeansGo (he's funny if you like "funny...ish" web content) and leave everyone still reading this wholly unsolicited "advice" wondering what would happen if Kenny Omega squared off against Kenny Kaos...in a ladder match (one-ring, of course). That, and whether talking about things (as a whole) has any bearing on what actually happens, or whether we simply forgot to ask Conor McGregor of Clan McGregor or that creepy kid from Poltergeist III whether they were liars. Have a Nice Day! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk - I looked, but I couldn't find who yoinked your style. I'll address the rest another time... starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's because I'm a sloppy linker, sorry. Fixed now. Click at your own pace. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

Taking a break

@BullRangifer, Aviartm, and Psantora: - Hi people, wondering if you could be of help. I really need time to do work off-wiki, so for the time being I'm looking to not edit anything unless I've received a notification of some sort. If there's anything you think I should weigh in at Mueller Report, Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump), Operation Crossfire Hurricane, or anything else, you can leave a note on my talk page in this section here to notify me, I think that's the safest way for pings to actually get through. You don't need to specially pay attention to these articles, just edit as per normal please, and if you are busy as well, please don't do anything, I don't want to trouble you too much. Cheers! starship.paint (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Your hard work is much appreciated. Come back soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: - thank you, you are very kind. I received a ping in this discussion, and made a proposal. Maybe you would be interested. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty {{u|Starship.paint}] Have fun and be productive! And as always, thank you for all of your hard work! Aviartm (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

blp

I am learning a lot from watching how you approach issues, and I appreciate your patience and willingness to instruct me. I also feel that you've repeatedly assumed good faith on my part, and thoughtfully considered what I have to say, and I also appreciate that. I want to understand BLP a little better if you're willing to explain (and it's ok if you don't have time, of course). Here's what I was going on when I invoked it: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Do you understand this so that, if the relevant claim could plausibly be re-sourced in RSs, then you can leave the claim pending the discovery and insertion of those RSs? I guess it's a matter of whether "poorly sourced" means "unable to be sourced well" or whether it just means "the current sources are weak". Thanks again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - well, I have to say that you did have a point in invoking it, because you said the source was questionable. Although I did leave it in for a time, because we were also discussing if the source was questionable or not. In this case, it also depends on what Contentious material is. Trump is pretty well known for his birther conspiracy theory (and all those other stuff) and we do have an article on it Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories so I felt it wasn't that contentious. Now if the claim was "_____ molested _____" or "______ set a world record for juggling" or "________ has 29 cats" then in my view that would be a different issue.

As for your question, if the relevant claim could plausibly be re-sourced in RSs, I suppose by following WP:BLP, you are indeed allowed to remove it immediately if you wish. One alternative (if you know it very likely can be re-sourced) is to remove the lousy source and hide the content in a hidden note, along with a note asking people to source it, although not everyone will agree with that this is the correct course of action. Or, another option (probably more would agree with) is a note on the talk page, stating your removal on the grounds of WP:BLP, and asking for better sources.

... and thanks for the kind words. I'm very happy to help. starship.paint (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Kessler

Some time back, you and I had an exchange about this Kessler piece. I maintained that Kessler was only applying his ruling of "Four Pinocchios" to the claim that the spy was paid a lot of money, and that "Four Pinocchios" can sometimes mean "no evidence" and not "false". You finished our exchange by saying this: my analysis of the source is that the “latest claim” is the entire May 24 tweet. I think that the Clapper sentence, as part of the tweet, is also part of the “latest claim”. Since you think it only refers to a portion of the tweet on payment, I think we have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I was curious about this, and I don't really like to agree to disagree, so I emailed Kessler. Here's his reply:

Hi, Shine, thanks for the inquiry. The Four Pinocchios was intended for the whole tweet.

As for Four Pinocchios, that's our worst rating. It can mean it's false or that there is no evidence to support it. (The burden of proof rests with the speaker.) Pinocchio ratings can be changed, up or down, if new information emerges.

--Glenn Kessler

So it looks like he says you were right about the scope of the ruling. And he seems to be saying that I was right that "Four Pinocchios" can mean "no evidence". So, if we want to be accurate, we can use this source to show that the May 24 tweet is either false or unsubstantiated, but nothing stronger than that. We currently use it in the lead to support the claim that "Trump's Claims" (whatever that means) are false.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you'll think about this information, but I thought I'd share it. Kind of cool to get an email from Glenn Kessler! Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - that’s cool. Thanks for the good work. You can use it for unsubstantiated then. starship.paint (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight I think you got the wrong link. That's not Kessler. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed by Shinealittlelight, all good. Thanks BullRangifer. starship.paint (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 02:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: - thank you very much :) starship.paint (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

AEW

Please do not edit AEW information in aircraft related articles while the AEW redirect discussion is ongoing. it is clearly not going your way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Steelpillow: - you mistake my motives. I'm not trying to influence the discussion at all. I would have withdrawn it or closed it myself, but I looked at the closing method and thought either it's reserved for administrators, or it's too complicated for me to do it. starship.paint (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  I am not suggesting that you seek to influence, rather that your edits have been disruptive. There has been a lot of tag-team editing between you and Galatz and that really does not look good either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Steelpillow: - disruptive is disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. I have actually been improving your airplane articles. Some are unreferenced, I brought that to the attention of your project. Some sections are unreferenced, I have tagged those. Were I acting in bad faith, I would have taken those articles to AfD, they've been unreferenced for years. Some sections lack references, I have tagged those. Some sentences lack references, I have tagged those. Some of the article's claims do not match the source, I have changed those. Some sources are unreliable - I have tagged those. Also, regarding Galatz - I cannot recall ever interacting with this editor. Even if I have, I'm quite sure it would be less than five times. Though we both edit pro wrestling, I think they became active after I lessened my activity. starship.paint (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Quite right, don't take my word for it. You should go back and check the editing histories of those articles for yourself. You might get quite a surprise. Look, I'm trying to do you a favour here. If it stops now, nobody is likely to follow it up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Steelpillow: - Galatz has their own way of editing those articles. I have my own. In every article, I checked the sources when they were available, and improved the article accordingly. I have no idea if Galatz did so. You can check, I don't think what we did the same, although I only reviewed a few of their edits. I have not been reinstating Galatz's edits in an edit war. starship.paint (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Do me a favour. Here are just the first four articles I checked out. In each one you followed the guy through a day later.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elta_Systems&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folding_wing&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_equipment_of_Israel&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VAW-12&action=history

No matter what you claim, the record speaks for itself. It is, as I believe you wrestling fans call it, a slam dunk. This is my FINAL WARNING to you. If you keep up your disruption I will take you to WP:ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: - if I were acting in bad faith, would I do this? [4] I would have sent those articles to AfD. Mere following does not equate to tag teaming. I checked the sources available at every page I visited. By the way, slam dunk's for basketball. starship.paint (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha! I hope you know more about aviation than I know about indoor sports! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I might not know much about aviation, Steelpillow, but I can see unreferenced sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles. I can see articles not following the sources. Sometimes, I can identify unreliable sources. That is the essence of my edits. starship.paint (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I owe you a sincere apology. I have been through some more articles now and it is clear that you two wrestling fans did not have the same agenda for AEW links. My tag-team concern was wholly unfounded and I am now off to the bathroom cabinet for some sticking plaster where I bashed my head on the keyboard in penance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That's alright Steelpillow, no hard feelings on my end. It did look bad on the outside. However, is your keyboard okay? Oops, I mean, are you okay? Oh, and don't forget Galatz. starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow - in case I am mistaken - I think you didn't contact Galatz again ^ starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Things are a little more complex there and I prefer to move on. They can speak for themself if need be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

... and for all of you talk page stalkers: NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION of any discussion, COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION. KEEP WIKIPEDIA GREAT! /s starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstardom

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you Starship.paint for mentioning these unusual errors in my edits and for messaging me about it to improve and revert Mueller Report to its higher glory! :) Aviartm (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)