User talk:Mathguyjohn

Welcome!

Hello, Mathguyjohn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 23:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I literally linked to https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-47337239 this source. It's been almost a week and the page still includes defamatory allegations that the link between Trump and Russia has any merit. It's false. Please read my contributions more carefully in the future and retract this nonsense. If you don't like my writing style then fix it yourself. The article is false. Mathguyjohn (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hold on. Where in the BBC article does it say

1. "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is called the "Russian collusion narrative"?
2. The "Russian collusion narrative" is false"?

- MrX 🖋 23:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Literally the headline, dude. "No evidence of collusion." If Wikipedia is calling spygate (for which there is ample evidence even though some elements have been exaggerated) false, then the conspiracy theories regarding links between the Trump campaign and Russia are certainly false - a two year investigation has just disproven them. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those are not the same things. See Argument from ignorance. This is why you have to stick to what the source says, and not what you want it to say. Have your read WP:OR and WP:V yet as I suggested?- MrX 🖋 01:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You're seriously going with the "just because there's no evidence whatsoever doesn't mean it's untrue"? That doesn't fly. You're not allowed to accuse someone of something with no evidence. The article says "no evidence". I don't care what your bullshit guidelines say, what the article says is false and defamatory. It needs to be corrected. You're not allowed to continue to assert allegations that have been disproven just because at one time there was a suggestion that they might be true. You, CNN and MSNBC were wrong. Buzzfeed News was wrong. You trusted the wrong people and got burned. Mueller isn't some anonymous source or an expert familiar with the matter. He's the lead investigator. End of story. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't take Mueller's word for it, because all we have is a brief summary written by a partisan appointed official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

But you can take a bunch of random assholes' word for it instead? Maybe you'd like Wikipedia's new tagline to be "The online encyclopedia that anyone can post unsubstantiated garbage to." If the article isn't substantially rewritten after the full report exonerates Trump, I'm failing any student who uses Wiki as a source. Mathguyjohn (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You should fail any student who uses Wikipedia as a source, just like you should fail any student who uses Britannica. Tertiary sources are highly deprecated in the academic world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, I mean I'm failing any student who claims they found their source through Wikipedia. You are a joke. Mathguyjohn (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)