The one who is actually correct
May 2023
edit
Hi The one who is actually correct! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Operation Mockingbird several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Operation Mockingbird, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 08:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"Edit Warring"
editI have reached out extensively already in my edit notes and talking page. If there is nobody publicly disagreeing, please reach out no further, and please cease contact with me. I am correcting a logic error, and stating that it is legally verifiable. I even was typing an edit to add context to please the opposing arguments. I am attempting to be official, while also being stern. This is not a matter of debate. To imply it is, is simply absurd. This is plain and simple fact. The one who is actually correct (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Threatening to edit war for 50 years is just you attempting to impose your will, and not an effort to collaborate with others to build this encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Re
editIgnoring observable humor for the sake of banning someone because they threaten your ideologocal stance, simply by attempting to correct an objective error based on nothing but one word, rather than adding distinguishing context is petulant and childish. Expect many more problems from me. I don't care who you think you are, you must accept that you are wrong. If you continue these arguments, I will not reach out. If you continue to imply I am 'imposing my will' when you in fact have written over seventy thousand entries and are a 15+ year member with more sway on the website than me, I will not respond. I will not reply any further to a grown man unwilling to let go of his ego simply because someone else came along to correct an error in an obscure article. Rethink what you are doing with your life, if you hold this closely to something so little. I have been here for minutes. You are a different story. The one who is actually correct (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I sympathize with your position having studied the history of the CIA. Have you perchance taken the requisite time to read the talk page? As much I agree with you, the arguments on the talk page are difficult to counter. I think the use of the word alleged is acceptable when seen in this light. Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't about ideology, nor is it about my ego. It is about your activities and threats to edit war. If you withdraw the threat to edit war and agree to pursue your editing in a collaborative manner using established Wikipedia processes to resolve disputes, you can be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- You might have a point. I don't know. But you can't just impose your will here no matter how correct you are. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's a good block. The user needs to participate on the talk page and at the very least counter the arguments in favor of the current version. I don't think anyone can do that at this time due to the limited information available. Alternatively, page protection would be helpful in lieu of the user apologizing and agreeing to stop edit warring. That's on them, however. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I appreciate your response. The exaggeration was none but. However, I believe the use of allleged is fairly easy to disregard and edit. All one would have to do is acknowledge that "Operation" is the general term, while "Project" is the offical with a hyperlink in the same mention. You could do it within the same sentence, as well as editing the same error at the end of the article, which implies the same incorrect distinguishing. One more edit which I was typing before being blocked from doing so, was to add something within the mention of the theories surrounding the books, like "in popular discussion, it is generally believed that (insert the rest). something to that extent, while maintaining the full context of the article. simply presenting the basic acknowledgement of the Operation as objective fact. A misnomer for the document if you will. Any newsletter or article or book surrounding the topic which attempts to add further conspiratorial context weighs nothing to me on whether or not they should be mentioned within the same breath or conflated as one thing, as they clearly are. I believe the attempts to maintain the current wording on the page have to do with a general discomfort or unwillingness to acknowledge the general fact of the documents existence. It is much easier to ignore an atrocity, when you can muddy the waters by saying somebody once said something possibly dishonest about it. I believe this all should be acknowledged, and fixed. If not by me, then hopefully someone else The one who is actually correct (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Having read the talk page and looked deeper into this, I'm not sure it's that simple. The sources used for these assertions are extremely muddled, contradictory, confusing, and in some cases unreliable. I didn't actually believe it until I followed up on what the opposition said on the talk page, and discovered they were correct. It honestly wasn't easy for me to change my mind, but it's something I've been working on over the years, so it was easier for me to do this time around. I suggest you also look at the sources mentioned on the talk page, and you may have the same come to Jesus moment as I did. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I acknowledged this in what you are replying to right here. My solution is to not imply that general discussion of the topic is deluded or conspiratorial, by no acknowledging the CIA document fully as the only official source, rather than having the note about the semantics of the document not mentioning anything by the name of "operation", which i obviously also have already addressed. Separating the official terminology from the mentioned books and articles by calling them general public speak, and saying how the term Operation is simply the popular term. I truly believe it is that simple. This is why i said it's not a matter of debate. Im not arguing my opinion on the topic itself or how to portray it besides an attempt to get rid of a dishonest tone that seems to be trying to make anyone who reads the article without a second ignore the fact that there is a legitimate government document admitting to what actually happened. The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- meant to say "by now acknowledge" not "by no" The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- acknowledging* apologies The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Take another look at Project Mockingbird. It's a declassified wiretapping operation. No need for "alleged". Now look at Operation Mockingbird. There's no such paper trail. Just allegations by many different authors with nothing really backing their claims, with some of the authors considered less than reliable. The two are quite different. As far as I can tell, we only have good information about the CIA influence on public opinion, which is why it is a separate article. For me personally, one of the most disturbing things about this page is a single link in the see also section, a link to the John M. Olin Foundation. This foundation is responsible for many of the ongoing problems in the US today, too many to even discuss at this juncture. To see that our own CIA was involved with them is incredibly distressing to me. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not attempting to discuss whether not any added baggage by outside forces is verifiable. I'm trying to fix the wording of the article. All that needs to be done is: Removal of alleged, adding short context to explain the extra baggage is public opinion, adding an offical recognition of the Project file, adding context to show that Operation is the common term, while Project is the official term, context explaining the CIA document is the only official source so far, a link to the offical document (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001451843.pdf), and removing or changing wording that implies falsehood of the document on part of outside forces that have nothing to do with it. My argument is that the terms should not be assumed separate, but that we should be mature and treat it as a legitimate discussion, without ignoring that the unofficial details are in fact public opinion. I don't think it is any more comlex than this. I don't see how anyone could possibly say otherwise. As I said, this is a matter of objective fact relating to semantics and context. I am not trying to discuss anything regarding the legitimacy of the extra claims. I'm making an attempt to clear up confusion in people's minds about the topic. If this cannot be done, I suggest someone with more power than me to simply rename the page. Call it something else, or remove it and add it as a section under the page for the offical document as some kind of public theory tab. I don't see how it helps anyone to intentionally confuse the public The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- But it does need to be verifiable, which is why "alleged" is used. The alternative is to redirect the page to CIA influence on public opinion, which I think was proposed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please stop making me repeat myself and instead just re-read what I said before until you see what I'm trying to say? I'm saying the problem is the name similarity. If everyone seriously believs "Project Mockingbird" and "Operation Mockingbird" are two distinctly different things, then how about either just fix the wording to distinguish the two and acknowledge the document as official rather than unrelated (by part of no mention of the unofficial name), or just delete the page and have this as a section under the Project Mockingbird page itself? Even with the final paragraph in the article, it reads more like something meant to make someone generally studying this deterred from looking into the official document, or treating it as something legitimate when it is. It does *not* matter whether or not the theoretical claims made by anyone other than an official source is true. What *matters* is maintaining clear wording and context that shows that "Operation" and "Project" refer to the same exact topic, while the conspiracy theories are nothing but general discussion surrounding the topic. Please, genuinely, please do not make me repeat this again. It is getting old. I am being as clear as possible here, and there is no other way to word this. It is incredibly simple. Please, I beg of you with all my being, don't say the same thing again. Just acknowledge what I'm actually saying. I feel like you're replying to me while having a conversation with something I said 5 posts ago rather than acknowledging what I'm *currently* saying, at least not fully The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The merits or validity of your edits are not at issue. Your approach is. I'm happy to remove the block if you agree to change your approach as I have described. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah sure. As i said a few times i was joking. I know that seems like backtracking but i dont know how much more clear i can be about that. It's just the truth. I was working out trying to make a legitimate change when i got blocked. Big misunderstanding I guess. Didnt realize everyone here is that... peculiar.. about edits The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- The merits or validity of your edits are not at issue. Your approach is. I'm happy to remove the block if you agree to change your approach as I have described. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I acknowledge what you have said, but I'm afraid your answer demonstrates that you don't understand how Wikipedia deals with such things. I tried to very briefly explain it to you, and you dismissed what I said and repeated yourself. This doesn't look good moving forward. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please stop making me repeat myself and instead just re-read what I said before until you see what I'm trying to say? I'm saying the problem is the name similarity. If everyone seriously believs "Project Mockingbird" and "Operation Mockingbird" are two distinctly different things, then how about either just fix the wording to distinguish the two and acknowledge the document as official rather than unrelated (by part of no mention of the unofficial name), or just delete the page and have this as a section under the Project Mockingbird page itself? Even with the final paragraph in the article, it reads more like something meant to make someone generally studying this deterred from looking into the official document, or treating it as something legitimate when it is. It does *not* matter whether or not the theoretical claims made by anyone other than an official source is true. What *matters* is maintaining clear wording and context that shows that "Operation" and "Project" refer to the same exact topic, while the conspiracy theories are nothing but general discussion surrounding the topic. Please, genuinely, please do not make me repeat this again. It is getting old. I am being as clear as possible here, and there is no other way to word this. It is incredibly simple. Please, I beg of you with all my being, don't say the same thing again. Just acknowledge what I'm actually saying. I feel like you're replying to me while having a conversation with something I said 5 posts ago rather than acknowledging what I'm *currently* saying, at least not fully The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- But it does need to be verifiable, which is why "alleged" is used. The alternative is to redirect the page to CIA influence on public opinion, which I think was proposed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not attempting to discuss whether not any added baggage by outside forces is verifiable. I'm trying to fix the wording of the article. All that needs to be done is: Removal of alleged, adding short context to explain the extra baggage is public opinion, adding an offical recognition of the Project file, adding context to show that Operation is the common term, while Project is the official term, context explaining the CIA document is the only official source so far, a link to the offical document (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001451843.pdf), and removing or changing wording that implies falsehood of the document on part of outside forces that have nothing to do with it. My argument is that the terms should not be assumed separate, but that we should be mature and treat it as a legitimate discussion, without ignoring that the unofficial details are in fact public opinion. I don't think it is any more comlex than this. I don't see how anyone could possibly say otherwise. As I said, this is a matter of objective fact relating to semantics and context. I am not trying to discuss anything regarding the legitimacy of the extra claims. I'm making an attempt to clear up confusion in people's minds about the topic. If this cannot be done, I suggest someone with more power than me to simply rename the page. Call it something else, or remove it and add it as a section under the page for the offical document as some kind of public theory tab. I don't see how it helps anyone to intentionally confuse the public The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Take another look at Project Mockingbird. It's a declassified wiretapping operation. No need for "alleged". Now look at Operation Mockingbird. There's no such paper trail. Just allegations by many different authors with nothing really backing their claims, with some of the authors considered less than reliable. The two are quite different. As far as I can tell, we only have good information about the CIA influence on public opinion, which is why it is a separate article. For me personally, one of the most disturbing things about this page is a single link in the see also section, a link to the John M. Olin Foundation. This foundation is responsible for many of the ongoing problems in the US today, too many to even discuss at this juncture. To see that our own CIA was involved with them is incredibly distressing to me. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- acknowledging* apologies The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- meant to say "by now acknowledge" not "by no" The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I acknowledged this in what you are replying to right here. My solution is to not imply that general discussion of the topic is deluded or conspiratorial, by no acknowledging the CIA document fully as the only official source, rather than having the note about the semantics of the document not mentioning anything by the name of "operation", which i obviously also have already addressed. Separating the official terminology from the mentioned books and articles by calling them general public speak, and saying how the term Operation is simply the popular term. I truly believe it is that simple. This is why i said it's not a matter of debate. Im not arguing my opinion on the topic itself or how to portray it besides an attempt to get rid of a dishonest tone that seems to be trying to make anyone who reads the article without a second ignore the fact that there is a legitimate government document admitting to what actually happened. The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Having read the talk page and looked deeper into this, I'm not sure it's that simple. The sources used for these assertions are extremely muddled, contradictory, confusing, and in some cases unreliable. I didn't actually believe it until I followed up on what the opposition said on the talk page, and discovered they were correct. It honestly wasn't easy for me to change my mind, but it's something I've been working on over the years, so it was easier for me to do this time around. I suggest you also look at the sources mentioned on the talk page, and you may have the same come to Jesus moment as I did. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Your comment about letting go of one's ego is interesting. Have you thought about who in this case shows the greatest sign of not letting go of their ego? Probably not, and you probably still won't, but I thought I might as well mention the matter, more in hope than in expectation. JBW (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is a distinction between being a nobody and making exaggerations for one's own entertaimment, and plainly enforcing your power on someone below you because you generally disagree with them, and justifying it by attempting to ignore the fact that said person (myself) was exaggerating. And a reply like this feels immature. As I said, I'm attempting to genuinely correct something. Anything else is fluff, and not to be taken seriously unless it reads like a genuine argument. I apologize for the confusion, unless you're just trying to get under my skin or something. In which case, that's not so easym I may type a lot, but emotionally I'm generally unaffected. I hold this site like I hold a sheet of paper. Carefully, without a second thought, and far away. As I said before, I have been here an infinitely shorter amount of time than probably most of the people in this page alone. The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- With respect, they weren't enforcing their power because they disagreed with you. They blocked you because you threatened to continue edit warring, and you did it again after the block. Take a break and come back to this when you are relaxed and ready to change your approach. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
re
editAs I've stated multiple times, that was an exaggeration. I've also blatantly, fully fleshed out my points in a way that more reflects how I actually feel about the article since my original statements. I don't understand the persistence on this at this point. I think it would be more constructive to figure out a way to fix the article in a way that people can agree on. As I stated originally, I want to avoid circular discussion. That also was partially the reasoning behind the exaggeration. I know full well I'm being pedantic, but I am calm and I'm trying to make things interesting while presenting a serious solution The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- this was meant to be a reply to one of someone's replies to me. not sure how i made this mistake The one who is actually correct (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)