This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rinat Akhmetshin article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
Rinat Akhmetshin is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
1. I followed the suggestions by WikiVirusC. I did not simply revert to my previous flawed text.
2. I also toned it down in my last edit to this article (the 1st edit after VirusC made those suggstions.), and challenged (using logic & facts) his OPINION (which he gave no rationale to support...) that it's a WP:RS (They have only 1 complaint of poor ed fact-checking in 7 yars, as [[Daily Caller] says; compare to CNN whose even published stories sourced from 4chan teenagers who tricked CNN, and several other times they needed to fire people (Brazile, the last 3 CNN guys in the Scaramucci case, and more... so are w supposed to ban CNN? I'd sure say their track-record for FACT-CHECKING (no matter your POV...) is worse than Daily Caller's;
HOWEVER:
3. We have varied POV in this section:
"email-to-donald-trump-jr-could-be-a-smoking-gun-as-russia-connections-deepen,"
Natasha Bertrand, etc...
...including that *I* used leftwing sources. So I'd suggest I'm not the one w/the most imbalanced POV.
News since yesterday, FACTS, show TWO sides to this story.
And of course it's a POLITICAL story, so lots of people have opnions. Or want to omit inconvenient facts. We can take this to Arb if you wish, so we can get "more than just a few people who happened to be here on a Saturday" -- because I'm confident my LAST revisions are MORE neutral compared to what was there previously -- and an {{ UP.DATE }} because this story is moving fast -- I don't propose that the facts we know today are the be all/end all.
The media --left AND Right, as my selection of sources showed -- and politicians have found her ties to Fusion GPS relevant to her Trump meeting. Why relvant? Fusion is THE corp who happened to provide those precise stories SOURCED FROM 4CHAN TEENS, which 4chan later confessed was only to see who'd be BIASED enough to run such kooky stories fabricated by themselves: e.g. story of Trump paying prozzies to urinate on his head, SO YES, IT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF EVERYONE ASSOCIATED w/Fusion GPS, JUST AS WP:RS TELLS US TO QUESTION ALL AUTHORS PUBLIISHED BY AN EDITOR NOT KNOWN FOR FACT-CHECKING. She was a nobody and wouldn't be in the news today, with her ties -- and Akhmetshin also has ties to Fusion -- to the anti-Trump corp, Fusion, being questioned in every major paper, left and right and centrist, except TWO people tied to this corp proven so biasd that they've lied in the past (4chan took advantage of their
Confirmation Bias), and why have any article on these 2 meeting Trump at all, if it's to tell a
one-sided argument Logical Fallacy? That won't engender trust in WP.
Come to think, when JIMMY WALES gave good sources calling
Mark Dice a "media critic," and activist-editors said, "Nope, truth is determined by cnsensus on WP, refusing to even TRY proving JIMMY WALES HIMSELF," do you think that style -- YOUR style -- is good for QP's future? "We'll gang up on you, and NOT EVEN GIVE REASONS (as VirusC was 1st to critique me, and I saw his rationale)? You don't need to tell the other side of the story exactly how I told it, but to kep thes articls as a one-sided argument FALLACY (violation) OF LOGIC is even worse. So, please, edit selectively (or REASON with me, as VirusC did, instead of wholesale-deleting. I'm just TRYING to stay with what sources wrote (ok, in 4 cases, what I inferred from THEIR tone, sorry), and I met Virus C's CONSTRUCTIVE critiques on those approx 4 items... If you don't want to make CONSTRUCTIVE critiques, or add your own info that you think presents another side (and 3 of 4 of you Wiipedians have NOT evn attmpted to do so rationally, like VirusC did, to mae me see the errors), that's not my problem; that's your problem when an Arb Committee asks you for REASON+FACTS.
Please try to be a bit more constructive, instead of delting-wholesale; WikiVirusC was; username "Neutrality" wasn't constructive like WikiVirusC (nor was "Neutrality" uh... "neutral" for the REASONS I just gave.
4. Lastly... I merely didn't keep the POV
one-sided argument that this section was, before I got here. (which granted, the FACTS AT THE TIME (just 2 days ago), somewhat merited a one-sideed argument.) I tried to balance that pre-existing POV; maybe I went too far on 3-4 points, and VirusC helped me correct those.
I haven't been edit-warring; I'm asking for constructive criticism, and took efforts to meet VirusC's because I agreed with most of what he said. He hasn't complained since then, and you've yet to STATE YOUR CASE.
Oh, P.S. blocking Ip's doesn't work; you never heard of VPN, or even dynamic addresses, or the "HAVEQUICK" to jump freq's (radio) or IP's (da ennrwebs)? :-) I'm a hakkr. I'm THE haxr -- Russia didn't do it, but you're still chasing your tails, ahahahahahaha. I'm behind FOUR government VPN's (mine isn't on the "free VPN lists" to block) then 2 proxies, and my self-coded HAVEQUICK. Just talk like a HUMAN BEING before deleting ...or edit away w/o talking to me, I'll edit (giving LOGIC) if I thought you went too far -- that's how it's SUPPOSED to work in WP's guidelines.
Comment - By the way, even though I'm watching this page as well, the edits I reverted of yours were on
Natalia Veselnitskaya not this here. I also have left additional comments over
there after my most recent revert. The general idea still applies there, some of the issue were addressed, but there are still bits that are going to get another editor to revert without even know any previous history of reverts, simply because this is a
biography of a living person. If you want to add something into the article, put it here in talk page(same for the other article) and discuss it out with the other editors.
WikiVirusC(talk)01:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Suggest, for accuracy (not private investigator) and to correct name spelling (Phanartzis), Change:
2015 hacking
...
In the filings, sworn statements by
private investigator Akis Phanartizis stated that Akhmetshin boasted that the hacking of IMR's computer system was organized by him. ...
To:
...
In the filings, sworn statements by Akis Phanartzis, a regional manager of corporate intelligence company GlobalSource LLC,[1] stated that Akhmetshin boasted that the hacking of IMR's computer system was organized by him. ...
Nabatea (
talk)
17:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I did a Google search for prior to July 2017, and here are some (but definitely not all) of the results. (I didn't check whether any of these are already used in the wiki article):