User talk:Factchecker atyourservice

Center for Immigration Studies

Your recent editing history at Center for Immigration Studies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI....

You've been mentioned as being uncivil. I pinged you at the discussion and now I'm posting here so you'll be aware of what's going on. I think you've helped motivate some positive changes at the article so please be cautious about how you frame your responses because there is a civility restriction on the TP of Trump-Russia dossier. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question for you...do you understand what I'm saying in this diff? ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Of course, and I don't see how it could escape them that the whole issue was rendered moot when the GOP guy explicitly said the same thing and thus it was no longer relevant to talk about whether a journalist had been correctly interpreting vague media reports. Meanwhile the way causation actually works IRL, if the warrant would not have issued but for the dossier, or more loosely, if the dossier was a substantial factor in bringing about the warrant, then it was indeed "all based on the dossier". Factchecker_atyourservice 04:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I am merely confirming what has been pointed out by others. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding, is this a joke User:Drmies? My comment was asking another user to STOP talking about other users, which is practically all he does. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. No, that's not what your comment entailed. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's exactly what my comment entailed. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Nothing burger"

Hi, I saw your comment on another user's Talk page: Has any such editor been active on the talk page in the last 30 days? The answer is "Yes". I recall, for example, that the Trump campaign-Russian lawyer meeting was described on Wiki by several editors as a "nothing burger" last summer, a Donald Trump Jr. / Fox News talking point at that time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Campaign—Russian meeting. Compare with: GNews scan. So not much has changed and such editors continue to edit articles related to Trump. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: not to get hypertechnical, but July 2017 is not within the last 30 days. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Fruit-based PA

@Atsme: please strike that pear as untrue, else I'll see you at ANI. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I guess it's not actually a fruit nonetheless I think ANI will need to be consulted. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I can see now that this whole discussion was fruitless. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a joke about being silenced - did you not get it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not get it. I just now looked up what that thing was—I trust you have a totally innocent reason for knowing about such things :D Factchecker_atyourservice 22:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if you took it as PA. I'll remove it if you like...but it was more along the line of User:EEng#Alle-wiki-gory. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, this has all gone wrong. No. I thought the photo was of a pear and so the "fruit based PA" line was a joke. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It usually takes a few rounds to get in sync. 😂 If you're headed over to EEng's page, it may be a while before you get back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged here I'll just say that I'm a fruit and none of this bothers me at all. EEng 22:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been totally corrupted by Harvard alumni. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it's going more wrong. Well @EEng: I didn't mean "fruit" in the sense you possibly may have meant, not that there's anything wrong with that, I thought the point of the photo was to call me a "prickly pear" notwithstanding the fact that that is a kind of cactus. Hence the fruit-based "PA" that I was prickly—which I am definitely NOT and I don't know where someone would get that idea. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to, but I just meant that I used to work with a nice lady who said I was "a peach". EEng 02:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Awww...now ain't that peachy?! <--- Ah swar, it was Martinevans123 made me do it!! He corrupted me with all the links to shameless u-tube videos he posts on EEng's page! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

C'mon Facty, dude. Just man up and grow a pear. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't give a fig about pears. Worst fruit of all. Nobody likes 'em. That's what people are saying, believe me. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok...you asked for it...

	How To Avoid Pricks
	When you land in a place that is prickly at best, And feathers get ruffled – you've disturbed someone's nest; Be cautious when offering friendly advice, Lest you suddenly find your two orbs in a vise. Lessons are learned, but to do so takes practice, To avoid getting pricked when you land on a cactus. Atsme📞📧 23:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

PAs cut right to the core.

There! That is the fruit-based technically-edible-but-not-very-palatable-and-possibly-quite-painful-flowering-plant-based PA I was looking for.

Now, please strike it before I haul you off to ANI. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Be mindful that only a few user pages have been adorned with such creative art...by the artist herself. You are one of the special few - enjoy it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't deserve this kind of herbal abuse. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Facty, I hate to say it, but you're being a bit of a fructard. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Now every mandarin Wiki-crat on the 'pedia is showing up to lecture me, like I'm some kind of bad apple... Factchecker_atyourservice 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 - right to the core...^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, Atsme, there's no need to get fruity. I think it's time to put this one to bed. King of the Pippins 123 (talk) 14:52, 01 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds so final. I'd rather send it to the strawberry fields, temporarily. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a fruity Gitmo joke, but this jam is worth preserves'ing and I admit I'm more than a little jelly.

Also FWIW I just read your edit summaries and "slack-ma-girdle" sounds like a homemade laxative. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Altering replies

You should not alter a talk page reply after it has been replied to As you did here [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: serious question, why? I made a snarky remark and dialed it back. Of course you've heard of the BBC. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Because doing so can be seen as an attempt to make it look like I was strawmaning by refuting something you had never said.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. How? Factchecker_atyourservice 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Slatersteven is correct, though I'll admit I'm bad at this. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a pre-prepared alternative I made earlier.. (I'll probably just come back and remove it later). Enjoy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well for illustration, say I deleted my last comment.

You should not alter a talk page reply after it has been replied to As you did here [[2]]. (me)

serious question, why? I made a snarky remark and dialed it back. Of course you've heard of the BBC.

Nonsense. How? (you)

How do you think your reply might read to a reader ho had not seen my original post?Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh my! What reader ho are you referring to, Slatersteven? No - don't answer that question...just alter your comment so as not to create a stir. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

All, I generally get the point of not altering something that has been replied to but I've always considered that to refer to something that had some meaningful bearing on some salient point. I see that to that end, I could have just only the snarky part itself, i.e. leaving "that's BBC" but removing "you have heard of that right" and so far as that goes, it's a clear error and I apologize. I do also realize striking out exists but in the same vein, I only considered that it would be necessary to do that if the substance of the removed material would have had some bearing on the other user's reply, which I didn't think it did and still don't really see how it does.

I said, in essence, let's talk about one source at a time and then gave a brief excerpt and we were talking about just that one thing, so irrespective of who the publisher was, I don't see how my subsequent edit could have engendered any confusion at all, let alone make Slater's comment appear straw mannish. So I am sorry for the misunderstanding and will be more careful about striking out instead of editing but frankly I don't see the big deal.

And not to be pedantic but we were just getting around to parsing what "no clear-cut evidence of 'collusion' has been unearthed" means, and that was only source 1 in a list of 4 and now we've gone around in circles for quite some time discussing the nuances of a trivial editing infraction on my part. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Claiming without any evidence on article talk page that another contributor is not competent [3] (when he is very much competent on this subject) is an WP:NPA problem on your part. Please do not do it again. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Without evidence" other than showing the obvious wrongness by quoting the policy back to him and explaining why it was wrong? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hence you insist that your comment was fine? My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Was it not fine for some reason? Factchecker_atyourservice 14:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your edit was an obvious WP:NPA violation for two reasons. First, you falsely accused another contributor of "incompetence" simply because he cited a book by Luke Harding that qualify as secondary RS. Second, you moved (that is modified) my comment on the page, even after receiving a warning about such things on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a "personal attack" to add a colon ":" to your comment to thread it one level deeper? That's downright insane. Don't post on my talk page again. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was worse than personal attack. By moving my comment you misrepresented it as if I was responding to your comment that did not exist at the time of my response. This is unacceptable.My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thought you were replying to my comment that did not exist at the time of your response. I don't think it was likely anyone would have thought you were replying to my comment that did not exist at the time of your response. Moreover calling this a "personal attack" is nonsensical, and your own bad understanding of WP policies and purposes does far more damage than I ever could by editing an inconsequential formatting character into your comment.

Now, stop talking pls thx Factchecker_atyourservice 15:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DS violations

This your edit simultaneously violated two editing restrictions on the page. First, you violated 1RR restriction. Second, you violated "consensus require" restriction. This text was on the page for a long time [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That is kind of a silly argument to make when the justification for restoring it in the first place was "no consensus" and the issue warranting removal is a sub-policy of WP:V. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I reported this to an administrator who is currently active on WP:DS [5]. Welcome to explain your behavior if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never thought much of using admin accusations and sanctions to avoid the substance of a content dispute, but it is your Wiki-right. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your comments, such as that one have absolutely nothing to do with content. In is incredible that you continue to defend such your comments. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is silly. I didn't say that comment had anything to do with content, did I? Go talk at NeilN please. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)