Talk:Ruptly

Wacky name

Quick question, wtf is RUPTLY? Why name it "[RT]ruptly"? This bugs the hell out of me, i could understand if it was a new agency called AB and then they have a section "ruptly" for Breaking news or whatver, but RUPTLY...? --184.161.152.198 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda?

Its a propaganda to cite spiegel only and make malicious assumptions about what Ruptly is according to them and what they think it has or has not done. Its not factual and involves many of the well known fallacies. E.g.: It is propaganda, because Spiegel wrote it is propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.253.214 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor who reverted my editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toddy1) is Ukrainian thus biased. Just because the removed part is an opinion and was cited as an opinion it should not be here since it has obverse bias and use assumptions made on logical fallacies.

I traced back the editor who made that addition to the article: "Revision as of 22:01, 19 January 2015" by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sayerslle). The summary simply states - Kremlin propaganda - Seems some editors have an agenda to derail the neutrality of the article and mark Ruptly as a propaganda outlet. Its OK if you consider it as one but that should be personal and u should stay away from forcing your agenda on this article and deprive it of its neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.253.214 (talk)

WP:OUTING says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment"; so stop doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SUBSTANTIATE says: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." The policy was being complied with; therefore it is legitimate to have the statement in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What personal information? Your editorial page is open and public and it states that u r from ukraine - and it is a relevant information regarding your motives of reverting editions made to keep the article neutral. U have an agenda to label Ruptly as "kremlin propaganda" - u and the other editor just pick a media outlet in order to reinforce your agenda - u r crafting a coat to a button, u r using spiegel to put your agenda into their 'mouth'. There is no other opinion,only this one. Why? Why spiegel? From another point of view spiegel is another propaganda tool.

About WP:Substantiate : " Opinions must still be verifiable" - This opinion cannot be verified, its just a labeling using the weasel-word 'kremlin-propaganda'. There are 3 statements in that sentence which are questionable and pure propaganda. Moreover u r using logical fallacies with citing this opinion. The only purpose of citing this isnt to add more insight to the article or to give more information but to label, demonize and to spark incredibility in readers about the subject. You as someone from Ukraine should restrain from editing or oversee and judge other's work on this article since u r biased by nature. But seeing your insistence on keeping your agenda contained in the article your bias is also an objective fact independently from your origin. On the other hand i am not from Ukraine/Russia or Germany, so i dont have a natural drive to put or remove agenda to/from the article - it just hurts my eyes seeing this sheer stigmatizing made on ideological drive. Please stop enforcing your agenda thru the article and keep its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.253.214 (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It can be verified that the statements attributed to Der Spiegel appear there. It is not difficult to find reliable sources that make the point that RT is just propaganda; Ruptly is less often commented on in reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your outing me; it is forbidden. So stop it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Who can say which media outlet is reliable or propaganda? You? Der Spiegel? And what are those properties that are involved in deciding? The question is not that the referenced opinion is appeared there or not but is it informative or is it propaganda only. What you do here is mere anti-russian propaganda. As i already wrote - please stay away from this article since you are biased by nature and by ideology as well.

And about "outing" you - Anyone who clicks on your name to see your editorial page can see where u are from. You made it a publicly open information so the term "outing" is either a lie or a misconception. Moreover it is a relevant information regarding your ideological crusade to label Ruptly Kremlin-propaganda. Just because you use an article from an obverse propaganda outlet (Der Spiegel) it does not change the fact that you are enforcing an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.149.246 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

His user page implies he is Ukrainian due to his interests, but it doesn't say anywhere that he actually is. In fact, one of his userboxes claims he does not speak Ukrainian very well. Focus on the editing behavior, not the nationality. clpo13_(talk) 02:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the user has now shifted to another IP in order to continue removing reliably sourced content. I'm not concerned as to the nationality of this user, but I am concerned about his/her disruptive editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"shifted to another IP" - LOL - have u ever heard of dynamic IPs? - reliably sourced content? :) So if i cite some random idiots's comment on you it will be reliable and informative? With citing this random op-ed from a well known liberal media outlet just to use it as a reinforcement for your agenda is just ridiculous. Thats why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable information source.

And once again about outing Todddy1 - " In fact, one of his userboxes claims he does not speak Ukrainian very well." - Even Vitali Klitchko cant speak ukrainian. Until the coup of last year they used russian even in the Rada. But u dont have to be an academic to know that Dnepropetrovsk is in Ukraine.

Stop using Der Spiegel's propganda to enforce your anti-russian agenda thru the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.149.246 (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Usually, dynamic IPs follow the same initial sequence. Personally, I don't give a toss as to whether you're an IP hopper, working from the same computer, from the same ISP, or from the telepathic signals generated under the steam of your own sense of self-importance and superiority. You're edit warring and unable to come up with a single policy or guideline based argument for eliminating reliably sourced content other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You've already been asked, followed by warned, followed by blatantly told to stop it. While you're about it, stop using this talk page as your personal soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"::Usually, dynamic IPs follow the same initial sequence" - Who said that? You? So its true. Just like with the article :) An ISP can have several IP pools, so dynamic IP's can be totally different if u get one from another pool at the next login.

Once more - just because something is reliable referenced does not mean it is relevant or true. Moreover the opinion in question is just an obverse propaganda that goes against the requirement of being unbiased, relevant etc. Here u just trying to keep this in the article because it fits for your anti-russian agenda of painting Ruptly black. This opinion wasnt put in the article because it is relevant or interesting or true but because someone wanted to add the agenda that Ruptly is Kremlin-propaganda. Then he searched for the referenced opinion piece to hide his/your agenda behind it. A little analogy so u can understand - i can write an article that u r this or that, then use it as a reliable referenced source to make it shown in an imaginary article about you. Would it be relevant? No. Would it be informative? No. Would it be a general truth? No.

If someone wants to know what the 24th nobody at Der Spiegel thinks about Ruptly would make a research on that issue, but that has zero relevancy in the article about Ruptly.

The placing of that opinion piece in this article serves only as an anti-russian agenda. And the facts that toddy1 is ukrainian and u Iryna is of ukrainian origin just makes it worse. And it's not outing - one just have to check your editorial pages, u both make statements that gives out these things (Dnepropetrovsk and Cossacks).

cipo13 - i focused on the editorial behavior of these so called editors, but their backgrounds have relevancy on their behavior/agenda. IMHO persons with ukrainian origin and anti-russian sentiment should restrain themselves from editing articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.149.246 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

warning about 3 reverts - edit war : LOL it was u who reverted my edits 3 times. It was u who engaged in an edit war just because u want to keep your anti-russian agenda in the article which is based on your ukrainian origin. Thats how u make wikipedia a joke :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.149.246 (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected 2 weeks. If the source is in question, it can be brought up at WP:RSN or a WP:RFC can be started. Reverting and saying things like, "is Ukrainian thus biased" will result in longer protection periods. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)