I created some archives for old chat messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 1
• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 2
• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 3
• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 4
• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 5‎
• User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 6‎

Dear HouseOfChange - I'm sorry to have been so slow to reply to you; it can be difficult to engage with Wikipedia in a serious way during the work-week when things get busy. But I simply wanted to record how grateful I am to you for tremendous display of good faith, generosity of spirit, and Wikicamaraderie; you've restored some of my faith in this project, and I hope I can continue to learn from watching how you proceed on this site.

I hope my additions just now will be of some use; if not, please accept them as a gesture of thanks and goodwill (and I'm also very glad to have learned a bit more about an important chapter in mid-century American cultural and political history). --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Publius In The 21st Century: Thanks so much for your kind words and your addition to my draft about Shelton Tappes. I hope you stick around, because although we differ on politics, I value your contribution. It was your civility I valued first, but having seen your new articles, I think you bring strength to an area where Wikipedia can perform a real service, by providing NPOV articles about US conservative politics.

You might try submitting new (< 7 days) articles at WP:DYK, where a wider community will give input, usually collegial and helpful. I had fun with mine so far. Also, when one of mine gets featured, I send a screencap to my adult children, nearly the only thing I do these days that comes close to impressing them. Happiness is where we find it. Best wishes! HouseOfChange (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Gerda Arendt, so many thanks to you for your ongoing encouragement! In a project that spawns many discords, your work fosters harmony. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I try. Prayer for Ukraine - I took the image of the choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that if you ever want to delete an article that you have recently made (by mistake or otherwise), you can tag it with ((db-author)). Happy editing! – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbrks: Thanks so much for this kind helpful message. I was feeling very discouraged. Thanks to you and to Jo-Jo Eumerus I am ready to encyclopedia-ize some more. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Carrie Campbell Severino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mhawk10: Thank you so much for your detailed and helpful review of this article! I am working to address the issues you identified. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buidhe: @HouseOfChange: do not move the Russian disinformation page again without discussion. Neither of you has previously made a single edit to either the article or the talk page and you appear not to have read it at all. If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up there for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there. To show up there in tandem with another editor who also has never touched the article, minutes after I told you on another page that you don’t understand the reliable sources policy, is blatant edit warring and only proves my point. You cannot prove a preponderance of RS if you do not understand RS. Please go read the reliable sources policy: WP:RS Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elinruby: Your assumptions are mistaken and offensive. The article is on my watchlist because it is in my area of interest; I last edited it on March 21. Therefore, on March 22, the page move and RfC showed up on my watchlist. I agreed with Buidhe that there should have been discussion before your previous page move. Your arrival on my talk page to bludgeon me for making a comment on an RfC is surprising.

Let me remind you of the article lede on March 2, before you began work on it: "The Russian–Ukrainian information war is a campaign by governmental and non-governmental organizations of Russia and Ukraine to demoralize or mislead. This information war began during the collapse of the USSR and continues as an essential part of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict."[1] Wikipedia has had a useful article since 2020 on the topic "Russian–Ukrainian information war." Your rewrite of the article and its lede do not give you OWNership of the page or its title. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain what you are suggesting exactly. You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process? Elinruby (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be suggesting that your reading skills need an upgrade. Go battleground somewhere else. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. It is not uncivil to be unable to manifest a cell tower to go your bidding

1. You appear to have believed that you were posting the following to an article talk page. You were mistaken.

Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia, not a fancy dance editors do when in a good mood. Article talk pages are for arguing about the best way to improve articles. And before you offer Buidhe any more insults or advice you might like to consider her impressive editing history. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. This is not an article talk page. I accidentally hurt this editor’s feelings while trying to make him feel better. He made a comment on an editor, which is usually not good, but his feelings were hurt because he misunderstood a joke and I am not about to get upset about it. If you have something to say start your own section. Preferably elsewhere. Buidhe needs to read the reliable sources policy. Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your antics are neither witty nor wise. Stay off my talk page in future please.[2]HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are an anonymous username. Your feelings, my feelings, are of no import. I don't need you to apologize to me or the other editor you named. All I care about is the integrity of WP articles. If you now believe that Pepe Escobar is "one of Kremlin's useful idiots", then please update your version of the article to reflect that. You claim it "doesn't whitewash him", but your version of the article makes no mention of his Holocaust denial (and continued writing for websites such as RussiaInsider that promote Holocaust denial as a matter of policy), 9/11 denial, Covid denial, current pro-Russian warmongering and spreading of fake news on Twitter and Facebook (for which both platforms have recently banned him), PodCasts, etc.

The funniest of which were his late-February assurances to his followers/viewers that Kiev would "certainly collapse in 3 or 4 days, that much is obvious now" (March 1st: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8syVHWRv_k)

Your version of the article portrays him as a legitimate, notable, renowned journalist.

The lede of your article refers to him simply as a journalist and "geopolitical analyst" - neither source you cite actually refers to him as such.

Indeed, the only undisputed RS in this field (journalism review) that directly comments on Escobar in his capacity as a "journalist", is The New Republic's "Pravda Lite" article which, quotes him only to pointedly mock him - with his own words - for his obvious lack of journalistic integrity: i.e., he admits that RT is controlled by the Kremlin, but he's impressed by its YouTube hits, so, all good! But you have watered that down, and buried it in the 12th paragraph (out of 15) of the article.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EnlightenmentNow1792: I can't put my opinion into an article unless I am citing some reliable source that shares said opinion. I certainly can't put a negative opinion about a living person into Wikipedia without really good sourcing. The US State Department sources I found and cited were extremely coy in describing his work for pro-Kremlin media. I did find one (1) article that explicitly describes him as pushing a pro-Kremlin line, which is now in the article.

I did my best to improve a crummy article about a barely notable journalist, sorry you don't like it. The Harvard Negotiation Project has an interesting piece of advice that I think about often: "Go hard on the problem but soft on the people." It is very hard to collaborate with people who are attacking you, because your first response is to defend yourself and/or fight back. We disagreed. I felt you attacked me, and soon my efforts were aimed not at learning from you but at defending my own side and attacking you. That was a mess, and I now regret it. Our own viewpoints on world affairs are not that different and we both really, really dislike Russian disinformation campaigns. I wish you good luck in the future with your projects. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources HouseOfChange, sources, that's all that matters. Nothing to do with opinion or what you think my "viewpoints on world affairs" are. WP:NPOV is all that matters. Your version of the article is not NPOV, because it doesn't reflect what the reliable sources say. You can either rectify it yourself, or wait until other editors do so. That, I promise you, is only a matter of time, given the current climate. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am happy if other editors find new RS or old ones I missed, or improve Pepe Escobar's bio otherwise. My efforts are better spent elsewhere now. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your honesty. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what went on between you and EnlightenmentNow, and I am not asking you to explain it to me.

However, I just want to tell you that I noticed that you stood up for someone who apparently had just been quite rude to you over something or other, and defended that editor’s right to momentarily be grumpy, as you said. If that is what happened, and again, I am not asking you to explain it to me.

I had spoken to them a few times, and think their topic ban was actually a net loss to Wikipedia, which might have been better served by a short block to get the editor’s attention, and some coaching on AGF, but I am not an administrator and did not have the power to make that happen. I will try to talk to that editor about this. If they will accept email from me. We could use some help with sourcing, and that editor is multi-lingual in languages that are hard to recruit.

In any event, I just wanted to let you know that I saw you do something that looked to me like a kind act based on a generous impulse. I still think you were completely wrong about the Russian disinformation page, mind you, but if I —how to put this — hurt your feelings (?) I want you to know that this was never my intention. I felt blindsided and misunderstood — in fact am still very damn sure you misunderstood — but I suppose I should have been less defensive and tried harder to explain to you that the topic was really really narrow... and been less curt in doing so...but I really don’t want to seem insulting all over again.

Let’s just say this, and leave it at that: at ANI I saw you be gracious and also kinda brave, and appreciated you ;) I looked for a barnstar but couldn’t find one that seemed appropriate. So you get a compliment instead; I hope it is coming across that way, at least. Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Elinruby, coming to my talk page with that was a generous and kind thing to do. By the way, I agree with you that I misunderstood you, and I apologize for the hurtful way I behaved once I got angry and dug in to my own position.

I'm not sure that a short block to get the editor’s attention, and some coaching on AGF can turn quick-fisted editors into collegial ones. Editors get angry when they feel attacked, as you say, and my critiquing people's manners at ANI was a hurtful way to try to improve their behavior. I hope your friendly outreach to other editors succeeds, as it deserves to. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s not really a campaign. This is special, just for you, except that I do believe in letting people know when I notice them showing integrity or generosity or self-reflection or some other admirable trait. As for the other editor... I will discuss that with them if they will hear it. I have no idea what was up with Pepe whoever that was the topic of all that, and I sincerely don’t want to have one, but I’m glad their comment on your talk page didn’t keep you from speaking up on their behalf. An editor who speaks Persian and Russian could help Wikipedia quite a lot if they learn how. Which is probably true of all of us, come to think of it Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elinruby: Yes, I hope we all stick around, and thanks again for kind words. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you recover soon and completely. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: thanks for the kind thought. It feels like a bad chest cold and is getting better, so I am lucky. Thanks also for your help at the ANI. This is such a good place. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note you had participated in the discussion on the requested move on the Russian information war against Ukraine to Russian–Ukrainian information war. There is currently a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation where your input may be valuable. Kind regards.79.155.36.178 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I believe that my efforts to improve Wikipedia are better spent on topics where I have more to contribute. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Since you’re a member of Women in Red, and interested in improving articles about notable women. I was hoping you could take a look at some edits I suggested to improve the article about Tamara Gustavson, which have been partially reviewed. I’ve declared a COI. The suggested edits are on top of the Talk page: Talk:Tamara Gustavson. Thanks in advance.Wiki64gus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HouseofChange, I work for Hamilton E. James and have a declared COI. I came across your activity on the Center for American Progress article, of which Mr. James is a board member. I was hoping you would check out my edit request on his Talk page. As you wrote on your user page, you encourage accuracy in WP:BLP articles and I am trying to update Mr. James' page. Thank you! KWray (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KWray: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for declaring your COI. I looked at your edit request, and I hope somebody else has the time to look into your proposed changes, but I don't have the time right now. I would suggest instead that you try to get a local paper or alumni magazine to write a fact-checked profile of Mr. James; Wikipedia could then quote from it or link to it. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HouseOfChange,

I recently made some edits to my personal Wikipedia page, but I noticed that you reverted most of them and removed my photo. I would like to understand the reasons behind these changes, as I believe my edits were accurate and updated the information on the page.

I understand that you mentioned a possible conflict of interest (COI) in your edit summary. Could you please provide more details on which specific edits you found problematic? I am more than happy to work with you to address any concerns and ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

If you have any suggestions on how to improve the page or if you think there are specific sources that should be included, please let me know. I appreciate your help in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia content.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Levashov.peter (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levashov.peter: thanks for your civil message. Wikipedia rules strongly discourage people from editing their own biographies, this page looks like a good start toward understanding why. To summarize, you should disclose your conflict of interest on the article talk page, and then propose there the edits you think should be made, backing up each suggestion with a "reliable source" to support each change you think would improve the article. It would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to sound like an ad for your consulting services. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear HouseOfChange,

I wanted to let you know that I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page of Peter Severa Levashov's article, as you suggested. I have made some changes to the article, including adding information about his current activities based on his website and personal knowledge. I kindly ask you to review my edits for neutrality and accuracy.

If you have any concerns or suggestions, please feel free to make necessary changes or contact me on my talk page. I appreciate your guidance and assistance in ensuring that the article remains balanced and informative.

Thank you,Levashov.peter (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any discussion about an article should happen at the article talk page, not on my talk page. This is not a personal dispute between you and one of many volunteer editors here. I briefly described Wikipedia policy with the intention of helping you. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear HouseOfChange,

Thank you for your response and guidance. I apologize for any inconvenience and understand that this is not a personal dispute. I will follow your advice and direct any further discussions regarding the article to the article talk page. I appreciate your assistance in ensuring that the content on Wikipedia remains accurate and adheres to the guidelines.

Best regards,Levashov.peter (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levashov.peter: I hope some of the experienced people at the TeaHouse will give good advice. The Time magazine article I found has some information about your new business ventures, so it could be used as a source in the article body. The article lead summarizes the most important facts that are already in the body of the article, so work on the article body first, is my advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondered how that thing was going. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Al Giordano, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @HouseOfChange. You reverted an edit in which I eliminated an image declaring that certain news orgs are disinformation. Please see my note on the talk page of disinformation about why it is a bad idea to declare any news organization a source of disinformation without strong support. This is true especially when there is a conflict of interest, for instance, when two rival countries like if US and Russia declare that each other news are propaganda. I hope that you agree and either delete that image or source it with a strong reference (right now it does not have a proper link)

Thanks MexFin (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MexFin: I responded on the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HouseOfChange Sorry, it was my mistake, and you were correct. I did not notice that it was an extract from the other page. MexFin (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't fully understand the reason for your cancel edit on Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, what did you mean? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should discuss this on the article talk page, not my talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Richard Smith (public historian) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it'll good to go once a source is added to the quote box. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]