User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d

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-1932 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump BLP

Just so you know, I think the lead to the Trump bio is just about as bad as it gets, but truth is, this is what was placed by the consensus of editors so it is what it is. Its so bad I jumped out of participation on that page mostly, only returning today after I heard that one of Trumps aides had tested positive for COVID, figuring that considering who the aide was, Trump might likely turn up positive as well.

95% of Wikipedia is wonderful resource, but in my 15 plus years here, articles such as the Trump bio have always been some of our worst. I'd spend as much time away from places as the Trump bio as possible by editing articles on things you like, otherwise all you'll face is disappointment.--MONGO (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MONGO I agree. When it comes to things like photosynthesis or film summaries, Wikipedia is great and I'm sure the talk pages are civil. But when we get into more contentious topics--ahem politics--things start to break down. And it's not just the Trump page. I've seen blatant bias on many pages. But, of course, as long as the 'consensus' agrees, then who am I to fight them? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Charlie Kirk (activist)

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Username

I almost filed an WP:AN/I report about you since I figured you were a troll based on your username. I'll WP:AGF and say you aren't, but you should highly consider changing to something more mature. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

MJL Dang, I'm sorry. Thank you for assuming good faith. I spent over an hour trying to come up with a great username, but you may be right. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

All good! I would just go with something that can't be connected to you personally but would still feel good enough that you wouldn't mind it being used for a quote in The Guardian.
BTW, your ping failed due to the whitespace. Try using {{re}} or {{u}} when responding to editors. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your username is hilarious. It's nice to see a different username that doesn't follow usual username formats, and it doesn't break any of the that I know of. If you're fine with it, don't worry about it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you so much! It does seem really unique, and I do like it. I just wanted to make it memorable Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you certainly win the prize there. (talk page watcher) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Any chance my name could help promote me to admin? After all, not too many users have a Ph.d around here . Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Since no one else has said it...

Hi there and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from our intro page which provides helpful information for new users. If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Otherwise, you can also reach me directly at my talk page. Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

On Turning Point USA

Hey there! I saw that you removed a section from Turning Point USA because it didn't directly cite the ADL or SPLC. While I understand what you're getting at, there's no requirement to cite these two sources directly - since they constitute primary sources, it's preferential to cite secondary references about the ADL and SPLC's positions on the group, as to avoid original research. Even without these concerns, those sources still support the statement that the ADL and SPLC have described TPUSA with those certain descriptors, so it shouldn't be removed without good reason. Would you mind self-reverting? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Hey, I really appreciate your respectful message. Many editors get quite enraged when I edit on the TPUSA or Charlie Kirk's page. What's the exact policy on using secondary sources to back up primary sources, because the article has many instances where only a primary source (ADL or SPLC) is cited? Additionally, per reliable/perennial sources, Newsweek post-2013 really isn't considered a RS. Even so, it seems a bit like cherrypicking since the Newsweek article is mostly about how Kirk tweeted out a video where Biden said there are at least three genders, and then there's a brief description of TPUSA. Same deal with the WJLA article. It's mostly about executive privilege, and then Kirk is introduced in the last 1/3 of the article. And only in the very last line does it mentions TPUSA's alleged involvement with the alt-right. Could we at least find some mainstream sources? If not, and if you really think those sources are solid, I'll happily revert myself. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Wikipedia's policy on secondary sources is available at WP:PSTS - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. I should say, it's more or less fine to use the ADL and SPLC as primary sources there (in terms of using in-text attribution) since they're subjects of the section, but there's also nothing wrong with using secondary sources as a reference for the ADL and SPLC's classifications. And yeah, Newsweek is generally considered an unreliable source, however it's subject to a specific exception where we can assess its reliability on a case-by-case basis - I think that it's reliable enough for that statement here, especially since it's been corroborated by the WJLA source. And in terms of cherrypicking, what exactly would you like to see? The two sources don't discuss in-depth these classifications, so at most, you'd be adding the WJLA quote "There's no violence on the conservative side. If there was we'd expel it and we'd hold these people accountable." which is irrelevant to Turning Point USA as a group, since they're not a political violence group (such as Proud Boys). Anyways, the section is about the ADL and SPLC's descriptions, so the only other perspective we really could add without going on a tangent is TPUSA's response, which I'm not aware if they actually have responded. If you don't mind, I do think that it's best to restore it here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Fair enough. I restored it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Thank you. —GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Synthesis, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Youtube, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Fox News, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristi Noem

Hi, I've reverted your deletion of a reference in The Times. Please could you explain what your reasons were for the deletion? Thanks in anticipation. Arrivisto (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: Hello. If you are referring to this [1], then the sentence was, in fact, not sourced to The Times. It was merely sourced to the Wikipedia article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The entry was a summary of a critique in The Times, as the citation makes clear. Arrivisto (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: I'm a little confused myself because I see that you been here for a long time. What I'm trying to say is that you did not cite your source properly. There are specific guidelines when you cite and you didn't follow them. Please read WP:CITE. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maza BLP

With apologies due to my recent adoptees... less than ideal way of bringing this up (to say the absolute least), This edit is no bueno. WP:ABOUTSELF applies here, and there is obviously reasonable doubt that Carlos Maza truly would describe himself that way (just having the words "Marxist Pig" without context in a Twitter bio doesn't inherently mean Maza is describing himself). As for the other source, see WP:RSEDITORIAL.
I am incredibly disappointed you attempted to get this content added to a WP:BLP article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Hello. I was unfamiliar with WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA policies. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. As I explained in Carlos Maza Talk Page, I agreed with another editor [2] who--respectfully--said that the way a BLP describes themselves on Twitter is probably undue and may be misleading. Did I argue with this editor? No. Did I cast aspersions at this editor? No. Did I question this editor's motives? Also no. What did I do? I listened to this editor's comments and I found another way to improve this article. Under no circumstances have I ever inserted a "slur" into a BLP. Now, are you gonna confront the editor who baselessly questioned my motives? (BTW, if you're unfamiliar, this editor is on the verge of being T-banned for this type of behavior: [3]) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. Of course you are familiar with this editor and their conduct--you adopted them. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said.. not ideal conduct from IHA there.
Part of my commenting here is to display to them the proper way to express these kinds of concerns to another editor. The other part of it is that I was the one to formally welcome you to this project, and as such I find it is my duty to ensure you are connected with the proper basic resources in order to have a decent time here.
Either way, there is a bit of common sense required to edit. It's pretty clear that Maza doesn't define himself as a literal animal, and including content that says he does simply misinforms the reader. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I know you mean well, but I'm starting to lose my cool. there is a bit of common sense required to edit...It's pretty clear that Maza doesn't define himself as a literal animal--thank you, I'm aware Maza is not really an animal. If the reader believes that Maza is really a 'pig,' then they are the ones who lack common sense--not me. I merely wanted to include Maza's ideological beliefs, and I found a better source for that. Instead of WP:HOUNDING me on a moot edit, go chastise your "adoptee" for their constant BATTLEGROUND behavior, POV PUSHING, inability to AGF, and general incivility. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm usually much nicer than this, and I always welcome constructive feedback, but I am not the person you should be lecturing right now. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel I am hounding you. That was never my intention here, so maybe that last comment went a little too far. What I meant to say was, the edit was wrong notwithstanding the sourcing concerns.
As for my adoptee, it's a work in progress. I have been trying to steer them away from engaging in disruptive behavior, but there is a bit of an ongoing civility concern. I feel as though I walk a delicate tightrope with IHA. On one hand, I see a passionate and dedicated editor clearly capable of improving the project, but on the other I see someone who sometimes falls short of the expected conduct norms for how best to communicate with other users here. Though, I find those conversations are best held in private (which is why you don't see so much public interaction between us despite our daily correspondence), so IHA can be more free to express themself. Needless to say, I have already explained my misgivings of their treatment towards you, and I am working on a solution at the soonest possible opportunity. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you for your response. I don't mean to take out my frustrations on you. IHA is the one whose made Wikipedia a very hostile environment for me. You're probably already aware that I have a long history with them. I guess you can say I'm more of a proponent of retributive justice rather than restorative justice. So, I think this whole "adoption" thing is really more of a privilege rather punishment for their actions. I seriously doubt any good will come out of it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit is not an accurate representation of the source at all and appears to in fact directly contradict it. From the source: “There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, there’s no ethical production under YouTube either,” Maza tells The Verge. “My goal is that I can survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs. I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube. If there’s a way so that not even YouTube would profit off them, I would be happy, too.”. I'm not sure where you got the information you included in the article ("Maza financially supports himself through Patreon subscriptions, and has stated that "[t]here’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, there’s no ethical production under YouTube either."), but you need to not cite content to sources that do not support them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Feel free to ignore my post on your talk page...we can discuss it here if you prefer. I am very, very confused on how my edit "directly contradicts" the source. It states that "Maza doesn’t expect to earn much money from YouTube. Instead, he’s going to do what plenty of other creators on YouTube have done in the past — use Patreon to find supporters and hope he can make enough to keep his channel going and pay rent..."My goal is that I can survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs. I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube." How did I not accurately convey the source? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly he was making money off of Youtube, since he says it was not a "big chunk" of his income, and we have no indication at all how much that is needed to "financially support himself". Also, the source explicitly says that making enough money off of Patreon to "keep his channel going and pay rent" was a "hope" of his at the time. Your edit also ignores any speaking fees, even though the sentence you just quoted as apparent support for your edit says "survive off of Patreon subscriptions and speaking gigs". Finally, your added content also ignores his past employment at Vox as well as any other savings or previous sources of income he may have. If that is the only source from which you based your information, then that seems to be a seriously significant departure from the content in that source. Given that the source only discusses possibilities from an article published almost a year ago, we cannot make unsupported inferences of what we think his situation is now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I had a response to your orginal text, but you moved the goalposts so much there's no point in responding anymore. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: "Clearly he was making money off of Youtube, since he says it was not a "big chunk" of his income"--this is incorrect. The source states "I don’t imagine a big chunk of my income will come from YouTube" Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: On another note, you can financially support yourself through multiple avenues. I never said Pateron was the only way he financially supports himself. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My only changes to my comment made it clear that the source article was almost a year old and that he was no longer employed at Vox. Your response in no way addresses the unsourced speculation you added into the article while ignoring content from the same source such as speaking fees. I think this is an example of you needing to be much more careful with the content you are adding and what sources you are citing for that content. I'm not interested in the disingenuous arguments about semantics. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's rather insulting...

For you to accuse me of misrepresenting sources when your edits multiple times failed to represent the tone of the coverage correctly. Falwell's statement was particularly irrelevant given that in the article itself, "Falwell and members of his family are not involved in operations at Falkirk, according to Liberty’s spokesman, Lamb. “Nor was he involved in the daily operations of Falkirk while he served as the President of Liberty University,” Lamb wrote."[4]

I politely suggest you self-revert. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thank you for reaching out to my TP instead of continuing to edit war. Firstly, any comments I made were strictly aimed at your edits--not at you. I try my best to never comment on contributors.

• I am not sure what you mean by the "tone" of the coverage. Like the "tone" of the source, the "tone" of Wikipedia should always adhere to neutrality. Next, if you don't want to include the quote from Falwell, I'm more-or-less fine with that. The only reason I included that quote was b/c I wanted a brief description of the goals of the think-tank (which is why I made sure to attribute the quote to Falwell, and not write it in Wiki's voice). The source said: "Press materials about the center described it as a national think tank with the mission of equipping "courageous champions to proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ, to advance His Kingdom, and renew American ideals." So, it wasn't just me who thought the quote was notable.

• However, your other edits were very problematic. For instance, you accused me of "cherrypicking" a quote, when, in fact, you cherrypicked a quote when you repeatedly included this phrase: "a think-tank "notable for their strong political focus and amplification of culture war talking points." This is incorrect; the source states that ...its advertising tactics are notable for their strong political focus and amplification of culture war talking points. However, did I remove your quote? No, I merely fixed it for you: [5]--and I'm not sure why you kept reverting it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review the edits again, as it appears you are not understanding the problem (or perhaps the article itself)? Your writings come off as attempts to only include the most positive bits that can be cherry-picked out, when the main thrust of the article is that the "think tank" violates ethical norms and comes right up to the line of legal violations. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I'm a little disappointed that you didn't acknowledge any of my previous comments...I even showed some will to compromise by agreeing to remove the Falwell quote. Your writings come off as attempts to only include the most positive bits that can be cherry-picked out--this is incorrect. I'm really not sure what "positive bits" I included. Unfortunately, you edits attempted to portray the think-thank in a negative light, which runs contrary to WP:NPOV. Here: [6], I never removed the part where you wrote that the think-thank may have violated the law. Again, I fixed it. Per MOS:ALLEGED, we have to make it clear that the think-tank has not violated the law. Even though we writing about a 'think-tank' everything in the article must adhere to BLP policies. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"you edits attempted to portray the think-thank in a negative light" - No, my edits were to represent the article correctly, which from the start to end covers the fact that the think tank's pattern in communication and advertising is outside of ethical and legal norms. If you think that's "a negative light"... that's the WP:RS, and it must be accurately reflected. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Unfortunately, you did not summarize the article in a neutral way. Now that I'm looking at it, I think we are giving way too much attention to this think thank. Remember, we are writing about Charlie Kirk--not the Falkirk Center. At most, we should have 2 neutrally worded sentences about Kirk's involvement with the center. It's really the same reason why we don't listen every TPUSA controversy on Kirk's page (i.e, UNDUE). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I did, in fact, summarize the article in a neutral way. I suggest you sit down and read the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I suggest you sit down and read the article: I consider that to be a personal attack. Would you please apologize? I did read the article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Wow, okay so I looked into this a bit and neither of you are completely in the right.
(1) IHA, this is far from neutral. I strongly believe that ethically and legally dubious is pretty much a violation of MOS:WORDS. You have to attribute claims like that if you make them at all.
(2) Swag Lord, this was not that good either for pretty much the same reasons (I can point the specific violations upon request). Both of you should review that guideline in more detail.
(3) Neither of you captured the opinion of the Inside Higher Ed article which was that while this ad campaign was probably legal, it certainly was unprecedented and pushing the limits on what is acceptable for a nonprofit.
Regarding the conduct of both of you, I have to say I am not seeing either of you reflecting your best behaviour. While I will still be speaking to IHA about this matter offwiki, I have to say that an escalation of this matter will likely just lead to sanctions against you both. Needless to say, that is not a result I would like to see. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I'm not denying that my edits weren't perfect. If it's the Falwell quote you didn't like I 1)attributed it and 2)agreed with IHA that it should be removed. For the rest of the edit, I really didn't change it all that much. I made sure to adhere to MOS:ALLEGED, and I simply wanted to convey that the organization did not actually violate the law. I really didn't have a problem including a sentence that noted that the center may have "pushed the limits" with their ads. However, IHA never proposed such an sentence in a neutral manner. Anyway, I find all of this moot, because most of these edits (including my own) are simply WP:UNDUE. As I explained to IHA, this is an article on Charlie Kirk--not on the think tank. If the think tank ever gets its own article, then we could the improprieties their (or we could possibly insert them on the Liberty University page). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If the other party in a dispute does not suggest an alternative, then it is left to the remaining party to make such a proposal. Either way, Kirk's involvement in the think tank should be noted to such an extent allowed by WP:RS. The center likely should still be covered, and the article on LU is one such possible location.
As for the problematic edit I had concerns about:
allegedly violate Liberty University's 501(c)(3) status due to their political content, although there is a consensus among experts that the ads "probably don’t cross into being 'functionally equivalent to express advocacy.'"
- Violates MOS:ALLEGED.
- Violates WP:WEASEL.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi there. As you know MJL approached me about the problems you and IHateAccounts are having. In talking with you on Discord you indicated that you would be open to a no fault 2-way interaction ban. Can you confirm that here? IHA, are you also willing to agree to a 2-way interaction ban? While this ban would be voluntarily entered into, it would be enforceable should either person break it. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sure, I confirm it. Thanks for the mediation. --Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: There was already one arranged on Discord and Swag Lord already broke that one in multiple pages but go ahead. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Discord?

Do you have a Discord (suggest consider making a fresh one anyways per WP:PREVOUT)? If so, join the English Wikipedia server. Lot's of friendly folks there! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Lol, you're really good at changing your tone of voice so quickly. Sure, I'll join. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT Bestsellers

Please be aware of the sources you are using. Specific problems with your latest edit on Charlie Kirk:

1. "Business Wire" is a distribution service for promotional press releases and is not WP:RS. Anything on it is WP:USERGENERATED, WP:SELFPUBLISHed content with no editorial control or fact checking.
2. Any entry on the NYT Bestseller List with a "dagger symbol" has been shown to be only there through bulk purchase shenanigans. Case in point, Kirk's: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2020/03/22/hardcover-nonfiction/
3. For more on why you have to be careful checking see: [7] [8].

Listing reference to a book that has the dagger symbol as a "New York Times Bestseller", if that is its only claim to notability, is almost undoubtedly WP:UNDUE since the book only reached the list through fraudulent practices. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Hello. We're allowed to use self-published sources in BLPs for very basic, non-controversial facts. We even use Business Wire as the very first citation in the Charlie Kirk article. There is zero controversy that Kirk wrote a book called the "MAGA Doctrine" in 2020. And it's a basic fact that the book made the New York Times bestseller list. I am not endorsing the book in any way. And The New York Times is not saying that the book is 'good' or 'bad.' It appears that the 'dagger' symbol is simply put when there's been bulk orders of the book--not necessarily due to "shenanigans," as you saw. If you find a source that concludes that the book only made the best sellers list due to "shenanigans," like the sources you provided me for the Don Jr. book, then of course we could include that. Please also see:Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#cite_note-bestseller-4 Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: You both might need to head over to the talk page. It seems whether or not Kirk's book is on the NY Times best seller list could reasonably be considered controversial and/or WP:UNDUE. For example, I am not seeing any mention of its status as a best seller in either of the reviews I read,^[9][10] but there might be more I just don't know about. Still, the footnote in WP:NBOOKS should not be overlooked.
Either way, it might be better for a larger community discussion to be held about this since reasonable minds could disagree about what to do in this scenerio. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"If the New York Times believes a book has made its way onto the list in a way that seems “suspicious,” it places a small dagger symbol next to the title: “Institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases, if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List Desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting and other statistical determinations. When included, such bulk purchases appear with a dagger (†).”"[11][12] IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: None of those sources mention the book. We have no idea (unless you have another source) why the book has the dagger. That's called Original Research. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"We have no idea (unless you have another source) why the book has the dagger." This is nonsense. Any book indicated by that symbol is given it because the circumstances for its reaching the list fall into the categories listed by the NYT as suspicious. This appears to be a larger issue, in that many of your edits (especially to pages on alt-right personalities and alt-right connected pages) appear to miss that wikipedia is WP:NOT a venue for advertisement or promotion: "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." IHateAccounts (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Which alt-right pages have I edited? Charlie Kirk? Dan Crenshaw? What are you even talking about? Who am I advertising or promoting?? All I said was the Kirk wrote a book. His other two books are listed on the article with no problem. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for handling the semi-protection on Charlie Kirk's page. Thank you for sharing resources dealing with page protections with me! This Barnstar is well deserved. Keep up the great work! PrecociousPeach (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrecociousPeach: Thank you so much!! I'm always happy to help! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Two-and-a-half months is an eternity in WP time but welcome, belatedly, in any case! Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Thank you so much! I noticed you commented to the WP:RSN for Gay City News. Is that how you found me? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, your comment in the RC Media thread, in which I also commented ... I was making my monthly pass through RSN and always like to see new editors there! Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Oh yea, I forgot about that one. I'm baffled by the amount of garbage sources that we allow on this site, but, for no reason whatsoever, RCP is considered an unreliable source. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a campaign, not a battle! Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For strict enforcement of WP:BLPSOURCES at Jo Jorgensen in the face of my short-sightedness, and for doing the same in other articles. Keep up the good work. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)