User talk:Existentialist Degenerate

November 2023

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages. My edits were correct and work toward restoring policy. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you take it to the talk page? Threatening me here isn't constructive. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I did respond to you. And it's not a threat when I tell you I will block you if you continue edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Same goes for you. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NOTHERE is too strong and you can become a constructive editor if you slow down enough to learn the rules, including WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. You can try to convince another admin of that if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Existentialist Degenerate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. You were the one reverting and engaging in an edit war with me, not responding to my inquires on the talk page. If I can be unblocked, I'll be happy to refrain from continued reversions on the article and to have a neutral mediator work with us toward a resolution. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear edit warring, no indication that there's a consensus on the talk page for your edits. Yamla (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Also, to the person who edited my user page citing BLP, please note that Adorno is long dead. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Essential reading

False or misleading statements by Donald Trump:

• Commentators and fact-checkers have described the scale of his mendacity as "unprecedented" in American politics, and the consistency of falsehoods a distinctive part of his business and political identities. Scholarly analysis of Trump's tweets found "significant evidence" of an intent to deceive.
• "White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations" is unparalleled.
• Jeremy Adam Smith wrote that "lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency".
• Thomas B. Edsall wrote "Donald Trump can lay claim to the title of most prodigious liar in the history of the presidency."
• George C. Edwards III wrote: "Donald Trump tells more untruths than any previous president. There is no one that is a close second."
• David Zurawik says we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because that's "how to cover a habitual liar".
• Trump is conscious of the value of repetition to get his lies believed. He demonstrated this knowledge when he instructed Stephanie Grisham, his White House press secretary, to use his method of lying: "As long as you keep repeating something, it doesn't matter what you say."
• Trump effectively uses the Big lie technique's method of repetition to exploit the illusory truth effect, also known as the 'illusion of truth effect', a tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.
• The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to The Washington Post, Trump repeated some falsehoods so many times he had effectively engaged in disinformation.

When a "sky is blue" type of fact is universally confirmed by RS, we are allowed to use wikivoice (editorial voice) to just say it, without continually adding sourcing. Trump is a massive liar, and we state that often because that is the universal consensus of RS and experts. As long as you do not accept and believe what RS say about this, you'll have a hard time editing American politics subjects. We want editors who are realists, who derive their opinions from RS, and are not deceived by fringe sources.

List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. (When Wikipedia uses "conspiracy theory" in a title, that means it is false.)

NPOV means that editors center themselves and their editing right over the position of RS, even when that position is left or right of center. We do not aim for a middle/neutral position. We just aim to be neutral in our editing by not censoring or slanting coverage from what RS say, and they are rarely "middle". You might benefit from reading my essay about how we deal with biased sources and biased content, which are allowed here: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, call me psychic; I bet you're not going to be voting for Trump next year... At any rate, in your bullet points, you're reporting what other sources have said. You're not making the assertions based on your own personal authority. I wouldn't contest it if you copied and pasted your bullet points straight into the article. But think for a second, that article the way it is, peppering in 'false, false, false' over and over again, is poor writing. By explicitly allowing the narration of the article to take a stance, you're allowing the credibility of Wikipedia to be subject to doubt among many readers. The article sounds like a partisan hit piece. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Those bullet points are directly and exactly from the content in the False or misleading statements by Donald Trump article. We are just documenting what RS say, and when all RS are agreed that it's a "sky is blue" type of fact that what Trump often says is false, we write it that way when it's applicable. To only attribute it, with quote marks, would leave the impression that it's only a debatable opinion of the author. At this point, it is not an opinion that can be debated. It's an indisputable fact, and editors should be realistic. Editors who doubt this should not be editing political articles. If necessary, they can be topic banned from the subject, leaving them free to edit other topics and thus be a benefit to the project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So I take it I'm right, you're probably not voting for Trump next year. Anyway, don't you think just as a matter of writing style, the use of the word 'false' over and over again, after the editorial stance of the article has already been made clear, is overkill? I copied and pasted the article in Word and counted the word 'false' 39 times! If this were a schoolkid's essay, the teacher would mark down the grade for repetition and poor writing style. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The number of times is just a reflection of how frequently he says false things. That's his fault. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that Trump is crushing his primary opponents in the polls and leading Joe Biden now. You're letting Wikipedia alienate half the country and risk becoming a DNC echo chamber. My edits on the article cut down on unnecessary repetition more than anything else, without adding the point of view that's verboten here that the election results are up for debate. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears you are seriously proposing that we should allow "the winner writes history" to determine our content. No, we don't do that. Content here is not determined by anyone's political POV. We allow fact-checking and facts, as described by RS, to determine our content.

The subject of election results is no longer up for debate. Trump and his attorneys have pushed election fraud conspiracy theories and lost around 100 lawsuits. Judges of all types, many appointed by Trump, have ruled against their conspiracy theories. Their claimed evidence has collapsed when examined. Trump's own cabinet members have said that he lost in a fair election. There is no proven mass fraud that would affect the results. The 2020 election was the safest and most closely monitored election in American history.

Trump is lying to you, and Fox News paid Dominion Election Systems $787.5 million because it was proven they were knowingly repeating Trump's lies. It was proven, by looking at their own internal communications, that everyone at Fox, from top to bottom, knew that Trump lost the election, that there was no election fraud, that Fox News hosts and employees believed their guests (Trump and his lawyers) were fools, that they knew their guests were lying, that they privately ridiculed those guests, and that Fox News chose to keep repeating Trump's election lies just to keep their ratings up. We have several articles that document what RS and court records have said about all this.

The topic is not up for debate. If you think Trump won, then you're in a MAGA cult. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Trump says controversial things. But I think even the most debatable things he says are still more coherent what whatever (Redacted) Joe says. According to the polls too, so do more Americans. Why alienate so much of the public? Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia, or else you wouldn't be spreading that BLP smear. I'm removing your talk page access because this is not constructive. If you want to be unblocked, you should read up on the WP:5P and make your case elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)