Flavor of the Month

Welcome!

Hi Flavor of the Month! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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-1992 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.

Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm Ixfd64. I noticed that you recently removed content from Socialism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

March 2025 part 1

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You also reverted material that has nothing to do with Boasberg's family. It has to do with Boasberg's controversial decision regarding the deportation of Tren de Aragua gangsters to a Salvadoran prison. The Salvadoran government agreed to house them in their maximum security prison for gangsters. That's where they belong. They have no rights there under the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the cited Act is crystal clear about "or ... incursions" that do not involve a formal declaration of war. The US Supreme Court has already ruled multiple times that the president has plenary powers under this Act. "Plenary" means "not subject to judicial review."

I'll copy and paste my comment from the article here: This isn't about the family, Team Trump is on very solid legal ground, and Boasberg was out of line. Read your sources, besides Axios, which has an anti-Trump bias and is repeatedly used as the exclusive source for much of this article. Try American Thinker (its editor and several of its writers are attorneys admitted to the federal bar) before you revert this again, please. Flavor of the Month (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If I may respond to this several months late. It doesn't matter how you view Team Trump or Boasberg. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court ruled. What matters is what reliable sources say. Read the list at WP:RSP, Axios is a generally reliable source. WP:RSN discussions determine how sources are listed at WP:RSP. Finally, regarding the edit that was reverted - if you want to add content, make sure it is sourced to a reliable source (and if you want to add facts, do not use an opinion article). starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

March 2025 part 2

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It seems you're carefully protecting Judge Boasberg from any exposure of his obvious conflict of interest. (Do you have any conflicts of interest you'd care to disclose?) He went way, way beyond his judicial powers when he ordered that flight of brutal TdA gangsters to be flown back to the United States, after they were far out over international waters (close to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula).

Furthermore, the article bristles with citations to Axios, an intensely biased, radical left-wing online magazine that should not be used as a WP:RS. The article is a hagiography, not an unbiased biography. His daughter Katherine does, in fact, work for a left-wing NGO that provides free legal counsel to criminal illegal immigrants, including gangsters like TdA. His wife Liddy is, in fact, the founder of another NGO that's militantly pro-choice. They have, in fact, received funding from George Soros and USAID under Biden (which has been shut down and is being audited due to scattering billions like candy at a Santa Claus parade, for any left-wing initiative anywhere in the world).

These are all verifiable facts. Some of them come from the NGOs' websites; others come from sources that even you would find reliable, such as the New York Times. For all these reasons, this obvious conflict of interest should compel Judge Boasberg to recuse himself from any case involving deportation or abortion laws. Instead, he dives right in and shows his bias, loud and proud.

The intensive Axios reliance, if it can't be eradicated entirely, should be counterbalanced with reliable right-wing sources, such as National Review, Daily Wire and American Thinker. Wikipedia is not a propaganda bureau for the Democratic Socialists of America. It's supposed to be unbiased: right down the yellow stripe in the middle of the road.

I practice law, in federal court. I've been admitted to the federal bar for 17 years. (How about you? What expertise do you bring to the table?) I consider myself an independent moderate, which seems to be exactly what Wikipedia needs. But my impression so far is that it's a left-wing beehive, with its stingers at the ready.

I am confident that several of Boasberg's anti-Trump decisions will be reversed harshly, with some unkind words for Boasberg in the majority opinion, when they reach the Supreme Court, but that could take years -- and I'm sure that's the plan. Flavor of the Month (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Your first paragraph: WP:AGF. Next, your opinion of Boasberg and his actions - irrelevant to the dispute. there's no point discussing your opinon. Per WP:RSP, National Review - no consensus on reliability; Daily Wire - strong consensus that it is generally unreliable for factual reporting. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

User:starship.paint Really? Daily Wire is unreliable? Okay. Let's have a conversation about that. I offered this challenge to User:MilesVorkosigan when he was responding to me within four minutes, and he ran away and hasn't come back. I'll offer the same challenge to you (cut & pasted):

Please find me a false "fact" presented by Daily Wire. Since you're watching this page, I'll bet you respond within ten minutes. And if there is such a false presentation of fact, I'll bet that some left-wing publication has posted it in a very special place, just for people like [ Miles ] who want to discredit Daily Wire. I find it to be remarkably accurate, for the facts it chooses to present.

Thus concludes the challenge offered to Miles. The problem with DW and many other sources, both left (such as Axios) and right, is that it cherry picks which facts to present. Now I'm going to offer another one, especially for you:

1. Suppose that there's a strong editors' consensus that the sky isn't blue; it's orange.

2. Suppose also that there's a strong editors' consensus that every source claiming the sky is blue is unreliable.

What then, my friend? Is consensus really any way to run an encyclopedia? Do you ever wonder why university professors agree that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source?

Here's the source of the problem, in my opinion: at some point, somehow, both left-of-center editors and English-speaking editors from outside the United States became disproportionately represented. Somehow, that happened. I don't really care to speculate how that happened, but perhaps because conservatives are more focused on running for-profit businesses, building things and changing money for them (they're kinda greedy that way), while the lefties are more focused on academia, non-profits (that can actually be quite profitable, check the compensation of their CEOs), and controlling and shaping the flow of information with an iron fist, not always concealed in a velvet glove.

When conservatives realized they were outnumbered at Wikipedia, they either fought back (and were silenced in much the same manner that I've been silenced -- see "iron fist" reference above), or they ran like hell, because that's the way they are, and those are the two options they always think of first. Flavor of the Month (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Flavor of the Month - I decline your challenge. My time is precious. I'm not here to debate American politics (that violates your topic ban). I'm here to try to enlighten you on how things work here. I'm checking your page from time to time, but I have not watchlisted it. Consensus is the way this encyclopedia works. If you don't like it, there's always Conservapedia, or Justapedia. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

User: starship.paint Thanks for your response. I would respectfully suggest it's not a topic ban violation to discuss allegations of fact errors in publications. Wikipedia is an unreliable source for anything that isn't just political, or politics adjacent, but in the same time zone as politics -- because consensus. And because it's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," unless they try to edit articles like Jared Lee Loughner that are in the same time zone as politics, and disagree with the consensus of the dominant left-wing culture. Even the most left-wing university professors agree. Flavor of the Month (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Your ping worked, but I’m done here. I wish you good luck. starship.paint (talk / cont) 23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from discussing American Politics post-1992 in articles or on other pages for a period of one year

You have been sanctioned because of excessive contrafactuals, such as this one.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If I may weigh in on why that diff cited above was problematic and led to your sanction - you were discussing irrelevant material. You earlier brought up My guess is that about 60% are left-wing, 20% are conservative, and 20% are in the "difficult to pigeonhole" category - which was not relevant to the dispute - and then went on to discuss Trump assassins, and politically motivated riots, again both which are even more irrelevant to Jared Lee Loughner. After that you went on to discuss your undergraduate degrees and your work for political campaigns, again irrelevant. The main purpose of Wikipedia is not to win arguments, but to have articles written, and when you discuss irrelevant material, that doesn't contribute to writing articles. Later - perhaps because members of the Zeitgeist cult have subscribed to it and are hovering over its Talk page, to prevent Loughner's well documented obsession from ever seeing the light of day in the mainspace - this fails to WP:AGF. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Note to admins: please grant some latitude to discuss what led to the sanction. Thanks. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I was being baited by three different editors. Later, on his Talk page, even Sarek acknowledged (in his way) that I was being baited. He told them not to do it on his Talk page. Mark Twain once said, "It's much easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

Another quote: I think it was Flaubert who said, "There is no truth, only perception." Journalists (and Wikipedia editors) have to seek the truth and in our political climate, perception is extreme, and optics are horrifically bad. It's difficult in this environment presenting facts, and my experience and perception obtaining them.

Now here's a third quote -- it may have been Goebbels addressing his workers at the propaganda ministry: "Our job isn't just to present the narrative. Even more important, our job is to suppress any information that contradicts our narrative." Here you see the suppression in action. Flavor of the Month (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This response makes it clear you are unable to understand anything people are saying to you, or have chosen to ignore it.

You’re also continuing to mis-characterize and mis-quote what Sarek said.

And as the other editor pointed out, most of what you say is irrelevant and unconnected to the actual topic. You’re going to have to find some way around that if you want to successfully appeal in the future. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Flavor of the Month, even if you were being baited, you have to learn not to take the bait, you have to learn not to digress. You have to learn to stick to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources (please see WP:RSP and WP:RSN) when presenting facts. The point is not to write an argumentative essay but the point is to succinctly present good evidence in support of what you want to include. You have to edit in accordance to the rules, and if you cannot WP:AGF, and would rather treat Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND, it will be better if you do something else with your time. We value a collaborative, not a combative approach. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Also you may read the essay WP:VNT. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles about mass shooters, as well as the article on McVeigh (the OKC bomber), go in detail about the killer's motives. (And I pointed out those articles.) Loughner's? Not a word. A reliable source (ABC News) was provided. Most peculiar that three editors were opposed to introducing a word of that into the mainspace. When they're refusing to follow what appears to be standard Wikipedia practice in writing a biography about a mass shooter, what am I supposed to do? Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You’re supposed to provide more reliable sources. I actually did so after doing a search myself. I was replied with valid points not to include. Regarding what you are also supposed to do, you can read more at WP:Dispute resolution. Ultimately though, if consensus is against you, sometimes you have to walk away. Just edit another article, of which there are millions. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussing the motivation wasn’t a problem. Claiming to *know* the motivation based on a couple of terrible sources and ignoring the fact that Alex Jones loves the same movie was the problem.

The sources were not strong enough to support your claim, and there were many other reasons to doubt it.

I promise, people aren’t being sarcastic when they suggest getting some experience editing less controversial topics, particularly things you’re well-educated in, you could be a positive contribution and would also lean how editing works. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

ABC News is a "terrible source," and "not strong enough to support [my] claim"? I've edited an article James Boasberg that was intensely political, and about 60% of the sourcing was Axios, which is actually a terrible source. But adding material from the New York Times regarding his family, and the resulting possible conflicts of interest, drew an objection. It isn't the sourcing. It's the sacred cows that my reliable sources would skewer. Flavor of the Month (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

You got confused again, we aren't talking about the Boasberg article, this is about the misinformation and speculation you wanted to put in Loughner's article.

And you're still ignoring the point about Alex Jones and about learning how to edit using reliable sources. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

You are free to hold the opinion that Axios is terrible, but current Wikipedia consensus is that it is generally reliable, at least until determined otherwise at WP:RSN (but don’t violate your topic ban by discussing Axios in relation to American politics). This “sacred cow” talk again reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Even if you are right in the dispute, you have to edit in a WP:CIVIL manner. It is normal for editors to have different opinions and object to different content. starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The point about Alex Jones is completely irrelevant, User:MilesVorkosigan. Conspiracy theorists exist on both the left and the right. Perhaps you don't believe that. But there's a conspiracy theory on the left claiming that Trump vetoed release of the Epstein client list because his name is right at the top. Zero evidence, of course, but evidence isn't necessary for conspiracy theorists.

User:starship.paint, perhaps you might agree. Axios may be reliable for the facts it presents. But it becomes unreliable because of the facts it knows are true, but it refuses to present -- such as the decline of Joe Biden, as early as the summer of 2020. Axios obviously cherry-picks the facts it presents. Any story about a liberal is a hagiography; any story about a conservative is a hit piece. As Goebbels is credited with saying, the job of a propaganda bureau doesn't stop with presenting the approved narrative. Even more important is the suppression of info that contradicts the narrative.

By balancing sources that are left-wing but reliable for the facts they selectively present, such as Axios, with sources that are right-wing and do the same, such as American Thinker and Daily Wire, Wikipedia can be the source of the whole truth.

I assure both of you that I'm standing on the yellow stripe in the middle of the road. If I sound like a right-winger to you, then I have absolutely zero doubt that you're left-wing. And vice versa. I am equally critical toward both extremes.

It is time for Wikipedia to stand on the same stripe. It doesn't. It never did. Compare the biographies of heroes of the left, such as Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and even Adam Kinzinger (R) and Liz Cheney (R) (heroes for their opposition to Trump), with those of the heroes of the right, such as Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

In the latter, entire sections are devoted to "controversy and criticism." Enormous amounts of space are devoted to all that. In the former, the only criticism to be seen comes from the left, for being insufficiently left-wing, until after they get term-limited out of office -- and even then, it's muted. Flavor of the Month (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You are not even remotely close to the center. Centrists do not start ranting about Stalinism and fall for literally every right-wing conspiracy theory.

The Daily Wire is not *remotely* reliable. Maybe try Reason?

And of course Alex Jones is relevant to your claim that liking that movie means someone must be left wing. You just don't want to think about that because you're dedicated to right-wing misinformation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

See? There you go again. Please find me a false "fact" presented by Daily Wire. Since you're watching this page, I'll bet you respond within ten minutes. And if there is such a false presentation of fact, I'll bet that some left-wing publication has posted it in a very special place, just for people like you who want to discredit Daily Wire. I find it to be remarkably accurate, for the facts it chooses to present.

< outdent > Just liking "Zeitgeist" wasn't sufficient for me to conclude that Loughner is left-wing. For that, I rely on the people who were close to him and have no political ax to grind: his best friend from high school, that best friend's father, and his ex-girlfriend. The ex-girlfriend was recorded calling him "liberal, even radical" in a video by ABC News, a reliable source. The Guardian has a political ax to grind; it is perhaps the most left-wing daily newspaper in the English-speaking world. Scratch just about any writer for that newspaper and left-wing corpuscles start oozing out. Flavor of the Month (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, this continued back-and-forth argumentation (by FOTM and others) needs to stop. FOTM is topic-banned from "American Politics post-1992". Topic bans extend to talk pages, and while it isn't unreasonable to extend a little leeway to a contributor's own talk page to help explain why they were banned, this discussion is clearly going way beyond that. And it is also clearly going nowhere. Per the topic ban, per WP:NOTFORUM, and because this is arguably facilitating an ongoing breach of the ban, I suggest everyone disengages from any further discussion of Loughner, Boasberg, sources cited in relation to them, who is or isn't right-wing, and all the rest.

FOTM, the topic ban applies whether you understand why it was applied or not. It applies whether you agree with it or not. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia you need to accept that you are subject to the rules arrived at by the community, by consensus, over many years. Those are the only terms you are permitted to edit under - the same terms as everyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion was derailed, I think, particularly after Alex Jones was brought up. There's no point in discussing Alex Jones when FOTM is topic banned. It's literally not helping anyone. FOTM, I tried to help you and I think I'm done here. I think there's no point wasting more of anyone's time here, since you don't seem inclined to edit anything else so far. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I found something I was searching for in the last few days to post here, and only now finally found it. Do read User:Guy Macon/One against many. If you can't adhere to this, FOTM, you probably should leave. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I've read it and can adhere to it. I thought that was what I was doing. Reliable sources (ABC News, New York Times) and polite discussion, hoping someone will change his mind, don't seem to matter. I was being baited into an argument instead. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

PS - regarding the WP:AGF observation, it's quite difficult to engage on AGF terms when at least two of the three opposing editors in the discussion refuse to AGF. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. An unbiased encyclopedia. That means either avoiding biased sources like Axios or, if they must be included, balancing them with opposing biased sources, like DW. Each will continue presenting only the facts that support its bias, but each will therefore provide the facts that the other refuses to print. That way, readers get ALL the facts, and isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? Flavor of the Month (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, I haven't ruled out working on other articles, but I have a lot of time constraints in the real world and thought I'd work this out first. I'm a practicing attorney with a case load in federal court and state court, including appellate cases. I have a family. I do my own yard work, and that's no small task. I do work for my place of worship, on a volunteer basis. Real people, in the real world, depend on me to "touch all the bases." This is why I've done slightly more than 100 edits in over four years.

As I understand it, the topic ban doesn't extend to European, Canadian or Australian politics. Or am I mistaken? Flavor of the Month (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't. You can however expect people to keep an eye on how you handle such topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Andy. I know you'll be there, watching my every keystroke. Flavor of the Month (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I happened to see that you filed an appeal at Arb and it was declined. I did not look at your case, so I don't know what you were accused of or whether or not you really did it. I happened to see that at least one admin thinks you were promiting a conspiracy theory.

Take it from me, you only got a year, and it expires automatically? Just wait it out. In 2018, I filed an appeal of a sanction by providing proof that I hadn't done the things I was accused of. This did not get me the results I wanted. If you have a sanction that expires on its own, keep your head down and let it do just that. Spend the time working on something else while you practice your sourcing and RfC skills. Show everyone here on the English Wikipedia that you can be a good sport about the disciplinary system. The time will fly by.

If you feel like you need to present politics to Project Wiki's readers, the English Wikinews is always looking for more drafters. It's even stricter about sourcing than the English Wikipedia, so it could be a good place to practice discerning RS from non-RS. If you want to prove to people that no your work does not promote conspiracy theories, that's how you do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)