User talk:BootsED

Welcome!

Hi BootsED! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Andrevan@ 02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Trump's analysis's

Howdy. I just want you to know, that I'm not thick headed. I just don't consider the provided sources as being good enough, if they're only about what other people think or interpret what the former US president said. If that's the best sources that are available & there's none where Trump directly says he wants to be a dictator, etc? then so be it. Anyways, I've neither chosen to 'support' or 'oppose' at the RFC. Though, I'm rather surprised that there hasn't been a lot of editors chiming in there. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also surprised at the lack of comment. I apologize I made it out that you were thick headed, I tend to get lost in the heat of the moment talking with people online. It's something about the lack of human connection/body language that I think hurts my ability to stay level-headed. In regards to the sources I intentionally avoided opinion pieces as I didn't want this to be what other people thought, but chose news articles that have to go through an editor and are much more reliable than someone's commentary. I apologize if I came off hard on you. BootsED (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No probs. BTW, ya may want to recommend to IP 67, that he should stop repeating the "If Trump is elected in 2024, there'll be no election in 2028" bit. No matter where he's getting that from? it's an over the top statement. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know where he got that from and it's not what I had written in the article and should not be there. BootsED (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,

I apologize about this and will discontinue immediately. My intention was to get more commentators on an article talk page. I will post these sorts of canvassing messages only on sources that the canvassing pages say I can post these sorts of notices on. Thank you for altering me of this as I was not aware this was a rule previously. BootsED (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have issues with user's conduct report then at wp:ani do not make article talk pages about them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I removed the specific mention of the users in my reply on the topic itself. BootsED (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Copying and attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign into 2024 United States presidential election. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mikeblas. Thank you for the clarification on copying between pages. In regards to the content that was copied, the text that was copied was actually text that I previously wrote on that page. Should I copy over text that either I or someone else has written on Wikipedia, I will most assuredly update the edit summary with your suggested attribution text. Thank you again for this clarification! BootsED (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Other accounts

Hi! For transparency and if necessary WP:SCRUTINY please could you answer: have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Bon courage (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I have not. BootsED (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

cool thanks. Bon courage (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Incidentally, at the RSN thread you charged me with "removing information that you personally stated you disagreed with" but haven't substantiated that in answer to my request. Could you either substantiate or strike that accusation? Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Replied to that accusation with my reasoning on the page, but I retracted the accusation as I do not believe going down this rabbit hole is worthwhile. BootsED (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2024 United States presidential election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 United States presidential election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I noticed you made two reverts within a 24 hours period: [1][2]. I agree with the revert, but given this is a contentious topic, you are best to leave others to make the additional reverts in order to avoid edit warring and potentially being banned, as specifically you are "not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic"

This message is just some friendly advice, take it or leave it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! BootsED (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources from Republican Party article

Hello. In your recent edit about labour unions and the GOP, you removed a few sources I had just added to the article unrelated to the labour union part and not mentioned in the edit summary. Was that intentional? If not, please re-add them. Thanks! Cortador (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cortador, I had no intention of removing those sources. I believe because I am currently on my phone there was some error when it came to using my fingers while scrolling on the page that may have resulted in that source's removal. I had no idea this was removed! Please feel free to add it back in the page and mention you discussed with me it was okay so you don't get accused of editing warring. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! BootsED (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'll re-add them later. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-addition of poorly cited content

Hey, just a heads-up, the content you added here, I removed earlier because the sources in question do not actually back up the claims, specifically about "Christian nationalism". I'm not going to revert because the page is on a 1RR, but I'd strongly encourage removing them - I'd be more than happy to explain in detail why the sources are bad here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to propose we simply move the list of factions within the party to the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page and just keep the historical paragraphs up top for the 18th and 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. All this granular detail and discussion really belongs on the above page and a lot of the existing text is simply copied over from that page anyways. BootsED (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Insistence on removing content?

what's with the constant reverts, constant misconstruing of my edits, and flat out perpetration of false information? 1. I have not once made an edit that says Democrats are socialist. Rather, I've pointed out that

a) among the many voter groups they excel in, socialists and pro-socialism voters are some of the members
b) There is a socialist faction in the Democratic party. Again, sources backing it up include links to articles of the DSA etc

2. as the past year (matter of fact it's been this way for a WHILE) show, neither Democrats, nor Democrat voters are stronger supporters of Israel. The fact that you keep on perpetrating that lie in this article is astounding. It's not even the case that I've tried to say 'muh Democrats hate Israel'. All i'm saying is that they WERE previously stronger supporters of Israel, but it's clearly not the case anymore, which would be the literal truth. 3. Factionalism has been part and parcel of the GOP since its inception, and as the source doesn't even mention 'since 2008', it's rather odd you keep reverting that minor change constantly

Lastly, instead of making strategic edits that would strengthen the sources, tweaking the edits in a more constructive manner etc, you insist on a destructive approach towards reverts. Mind you, you're the one who's violated the 'not more than 1 revert per hour' policy, whilst I've simply been editing closer and closer to a more reasonable edit. 🤷🏻‍♂️ daruda (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Darude,

You have been engaged in an edit war on the Democratic Party and Republican Party pages. You did in fact say that the Democrats are socialist through your edits, and added in socialism as a faction in the infobox of the Democratic Party page. You must be using the visual editor, because if not you should have seen text saying that you should not change the ideology section without consensus at the talk page. If you had viewed the talk page, you would have seen that there was discussion less than a week ago about potentially adding in "democratic socialism" as an ideology, but the consensus was to not add it.

Also, the DSA is not a part of the Democratic Party. There has been discussion about this in the past and the DSA should not be used to claim that the Democrats are socialist.

You also made multiple edits that added in bare urls as your references, or had no references at all to back up your claims, or reworded sentences to state that existing sources said things that they in fact did not (I know because I had to check). Several of your claims involved synthesis of existing sources or original research, and had grammatical or spelling errors.

In regards to Israel, you may have some merit to your points, however, your disruptive editing at that point, along with your edit that added in bare urls as references caused me to alter it. I am, in fact, attempting to have good faith, as I did in fact add in your sentence that the Democratic base has grown more skeptical of the Israeli government as a result of the war, removed the excess sources and properly formatted the citation. However, your claim that Democrats no longer support Israel and now support Palestine should be discussed on the talk page.

Your claim regarding "since 2008" is true, however, you also engaged in original research by saying that the GOP has had factionalism throughout its history because "the history of the GOP demonstrates constant factionalism throughout its history," but also provided no sources to back up your claim. If I recall correctly, the 2008 claim was from another source that over time was removed from the lead and put into the body of the article over the months it has been on the page. However, rather than bringing this to our attention on the talk page or simply removing the "since 2008," you proceeded to bring your own original research to the sentence and make claims that are also wholly unsupported by the source at hand.

At this point, I would recommend reviewing basic Wikipedia guidelines on how to properly cite sources, what is original research, and to check the talk pages of articles you wish to edit to see if there has previously been discussion about what you are wanting to add. BootsED (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)