Hi Cinemaandpolitics,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 10:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just joined wikipedia so thank you for the welcome :)

When I'll have some free time I'd love so contribute more, some of the pages I already edited have of course a bit of priority :) Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're finally accusing us of being the same person. The supposed "third opinion" went mask off. Looking through their talk page, their correspondence goes way back. I can try to write up a report or if you're fine with the situation, let me know. I don't want to drag you into something you have no interest in. Symphidius (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not everybody can be Sherlock Holmes ahahah I do not care that they correspond about these delusional idea of a sockpuppet, but to be honest I do not know how the whole thing works? How far can the delusions go? Is the report needed?

The fact that a lead section is in such a pitifull state don't even cross their mind as the first reasoning behind multiple people editing it... Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They (singular) are unusually hostile to any of your proposals, which I thought was funny because they're purporting to be a mediator of sorts despite never questioning the other party. I was just thinking that if we come to an impasse, it'd be better to get a third party involved as they can no longer be considered neutral. Symphidius (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that if someone entertains delusional thoughts about sockpuppets cannot be considered neutral on an edit, it is just that I am not sure that I care that much for this addition to go on the board.

What I find absolutelly hilarious is that we don't even agree about other edits ahah Talk about a sockpuppet!! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your recent post on the TPB talk page contained several false accusations, was a direct personal attack, and even if true should have been on either my talk page or at AN/I, not on an article talk page. Indeed, it was very strange coming in response to a perfectly civil, eight-week old post. You will find that disagreements are a part of the nature of a collaborative project. Assumption of good faith and civility are most important aspects of this collaboration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is civil about your post. You made a direct personal attack to other editors "As for TPB, realize that many Wikipedia editors do not believe in copyright and have no problem with people stealing the hard work of others".

Which I pointed out. There is no point trying to spin it the other way around. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are fairly new here. The TPB page was created 19 years ago. Over that time, many editors have flat out stated on the TPB talk page that copyright was a violation of rights, copyright violation is harmless, copyright holders are [fill in a nasty word], information belongs to everyone, TPB never violated any laws (even claiming this after the guilty verdicts), and on and on. My comment was a simple fact and not aimed at any particular editor and not at any editor currently editing that TP. Nothing on that TP that I have posted could be considered a personal attack. I don't make personal attacks; which is one reason I have been here for 17 years without any sanctions. OTOH, you have repeatedly attacked me with false accusations, which is sanctionable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your words speak for yourself. Specific or general, that is a personal attack.

Also let's not forget what you wrote at the end of the RfC:

"Yes - The people that go there deserve to have their machines damaged and ids stolen. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)"

Very civil. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your attacks continue on that talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

– bradv 02:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinemaandpolitics, thank you for your engagement on talk page for the Trump article. If you write up an RfC on the subject of adding a brief Trumpism description to the lead, could you please run it by my talk page before you post it? I would like to review the exact wording first. — Goszei (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you beeing the one to draft a proposed addition you could also start the RfC. I am also wondering if there are sufficients ground for an RfC, some could disagree.

Personally I would phrase it in the most simple way:

Do you agree to add this phrase to the Donald Trump lead to describe his first presidential campaign?

In 2015, Trump launched a presidential campaign characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing discussion should be allowed to run its course and be archived before an RfC is started. — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that is needed, I mean to have the discussion archived there shouldn't be any post added. I guess I will not reply to it anymore? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to ping me to the discussion at Talk:The Blair Witch Project? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because you two were the two last registered editors to have modified the page :) thank you for answering!

I see that you got various barnstar of diplomacy and such, so if you don't mind I'll tag you on other difficult discussions where I may need a third opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]