User talk:BootsED

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

NPOV

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm PartisanicActivites. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists: Controveries

[edit]

Hello BootsED. In June 2025, you edited AASECT to remove the Controversies section due to WP:NPOV violation. Recently, Ayinderamoni edited to to focus on Dr. Caleb Jacobson and Jacobson's organization, International Association of Psychosexual Therapists (IAPST). Ayinderamoni has disclosed a conflict of interest with Caleb Jacobson. I attempted to correct that and create a more balanced section. Given your experience as a long-time editor and active editor, I need your advice on keeping Wikipedia non-promotional. TheoJarek (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Thiel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oligarch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk reaction section

[edit]

FYI --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk#Reactions_are_getting_out_of_control — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Good evening. Could you replace the word "tankie" on your page with a more civilized equivalent? I don't care about your anti-communism, that's your personal business. But I'm confused by the fact that you openly use a negative slang term for people with leftist views, which in this context also suggests that you trying to make a statement about some destructive actions in the project by users with communist views. I hope for your understanding. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand from the lack of response, you think it is normal to use derogatory labels and veiled accusations on a user's page? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage says you are from Russia. Do you happen to be a fan of the Soviet Union? I've never had someone take offense to someone not liking authoritarian communist regimes. BootsED (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I understood everything I wanted to know. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Charlie Kirk

[edit]

Here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=1310941807), you erased bunch of relevant and neutral information, including Trump declaring "no violence" to his supporters.

Also, the following info, saying Trump did not condemn deaths of Democratic lawmakers is false:

saying they "compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis", but did not pay tribute to recent Democratic victims of violence.

https://x.com/PressSec/status/1933910353718497656

Aman7goyal (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We go off of reliable sources, not tweets. BootsED (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) – Please note BootsED, that until otherwise deemed unreliable, official publications by the federal government of the United States are almost always considered a "generally reliable" source for information. WP:RSPX states posts on Twitter are generally unreliable, except in cases of subject-matter experts, which are reliable sources. The U.S. federal government falls under this categorization all the time for social media posts. This includes the White House Press Secretary, which is the official spokesperson for the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. I do not know the context of this discussion, as I saw this discussion via my watchlist, however, "We go off of reliable sources, not tweets", is arguably false if this discussion revolves around the use of a U.S. government official's press release. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSPX does not make any mention of the federal government's Twitter being a "generally reliable" source of information. I am curious, where specifically does Wikipedia policy state this? In either case, we have multiple reliable secondary sources that say Trump did not pay tribute to Democratic victims of violence in his nationwide address, which is what the sentence was about. The same paragraph also says Trump told his supporters not to be violent, so I don't understand what the user is complaining about. BootsED (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the tweet posted by the user does not even say what he said it does. There is no mention of Trump paying tribute to Democratic victims of violence, it's just a generic statement by Karoline Leavitt promising to go after the guy. BootsED (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the user has been blocked for disruptive editing anyways. I think he was confused because the edit diff crossed out that part but had me re-add it at the same time in a different place, so he simply saw me removing the edit but did not see that I simply moved it around. BootsED (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED, please also stop removing that people celebrated his death when this was factually the case and is sourced FMSky (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it. It's still on the page. I removed it being mentioned two times in the lead, when it only needs to be mentioned once. BootsED (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its incomplete then. The reactions didnt only range from "heartfelt messages to sharply partisan comments", it ranged from "heartfelt messages to sharply partisan comments and celebrations of his death". A solution would be to remove the sentence entirely, which i've just done FMSky (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So technically for the full story, the sentence was initially sourced from one New York Times piece that described the reactions as ranging from heartfelt messages to partisan commentary. It didn't mention celebrations of his death. That was added in later when someone attempted to remove the third paragraph which is where the celebrations were mentioned, but that removal was reverted. Someone simply didn't remove the double mention of celebrations in the first sentence, which is why I did so. BootsED (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Woke"

[edit]

I still have some questions about your edits based on our interactions, but I also don't want this to take on the character of any antagonism or confrontation, so I want to apologize for any misunderstandings or obvious rudeness on my part. Thank you for taking into account at least part of my wishes, I appreciate it. Killing of Charlie Kirk clearly has a negative impact on the project's work, even when it comes to tangentially related articles. I removed the article from my watchlist, but it didn't seem to help much. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I appreciate your comments here. Again, I never meant to insult your ethnicity with my comments about the Soviet Union, I was quite surprised when you said that.
I also appreciate your comments, as I agree you were correct that more sources needed to be used for that statement and that some of the quotations were excessive. Disagreement makes Wikipedia better. Regardless, please don't accuse others of being biased or having a secret motive and assume good faith. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. I've seen a lot of good editors leave or be blocked from the site for failing this key tenet of Wikipedia even if they were correct.
Also, I'm not sure I understand your question about the killing of Charlie Kirk page. What seems to be the issue? BootsED (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that the heavy emotional weight of the event has a heavy impact on the article writing itself. Not to mention the level of interest, I was getting a ton of editing conflicts when trying to make minor edits to the article or leave comments on the discussion page. I don't see a problem with bias itself; we're all obviously biased on this topic. But I'm concerned that, as in real life, Kirk's killing has only intensified the confrontation between the right and the left. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically on pages for recent major events such as deaths, wars, crimes, and celebrity gossip, a lot of people will edit the page which will lead to edit conflicts. I also had my edits be overwritten by the fast pace of editing. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be annoying. I will always back up my edits in a word document so if it is overwritten I can simply go back in and paste my prior work without losing it. If you scroll all the way down the page during an edit conflict, you can also see a saved version of the page and your edits before the conflict, so you can copy what you wrote.
It's natural to be worried about increasing political polarization. Our job as Wikipedians is to simply document what reliable sources say about it. BootsED (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I can't blame people for actively editing a public article at the same time as me. But when it's done on such a large scale, it's a bit impressive. I think Wikipedia, as a product of real life, also exhibits both its positive and negative qualities. But I'm an ordinary man and can't change human nature in any way. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up, warrior!

[edit]

Wanna say thank you for all your contribution to Wikipedia. You do tirelessly edits, finding articles that suit your ideology and agenda, spending your days locked in edit wars to push your views and knock down anyone who disagrees. It's impressive how you turn every news site into a weapon, scanning for any scrap of info that lets you tweak an article and make your targets look worse then edit it right in, building your case brick by brick. Your history of changes reads like a log of endless battles, proof that one person can control the story better than anyone with actual work to do. Keep grinding those talk pages. it makes the rest of us with bills and friends look lazy. You've made Wikipedia your full-time battleground, and we're just watching you rack up those points. Next up, a badge for "Best Use of Free Time on Made-Up Fights"? You deserve it, buddy keep at it till the end. No real job holding you back means you can keep at it non-stop, every revert feels like a big victory.You're basically the full-time guard dog of "the truth," as you see it, digging up article written by "journalist" your own kind to slap into references that bury the other side. While normal people are out working or living, you're glued to your screen, arguing on talk pages and undoing changes like it's your mission in life. Your dedication to this one endless fight is something else—who else gets to spend years on a free website chasing these tiny "wins" that nobody outside your bubble even notices? Keep grinding away at it; it's clearly the highlight of your schedule, and hey, at least it keeps you busy 103.165.28.77 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grokipedia

[edit]

BootsED, if a contentious lead addition of you gets reverted, the solution is not to simply re-insert that content in a subsequent edit. FMSky (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it with sourcing, I believe I am still under the 3RR. BootsED (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a severe NPOV violation, it should be discussed on the talk page first FMSky (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. But I will discuss it there in a couple of hours once I am at my computer. BootsED (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Brennan and Indivisible.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]