![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:
I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking for the old content of a redirect just click on history of the article. You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/wiki/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live? Springee ( talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee ( talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I admire your patience at The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks . I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.
I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?
I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).
NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And it was promptly removed...
Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article?
Springee (
talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors. 1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy, see here. 2. Your edit here moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".
If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.
Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Easy as Pie!...
3.1415926535897932 AnønʘmøưṨ 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
There is no link provided for your rfc request on the admin board which you posted (only red link): ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Could you fix it. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, Fixed! Springee ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's important to be measured, careful and respectful -- and I'm trying to see where this is going to fall out.
![]() |
A Chrysler PT Cruiser for you! |
Thank you for your constructive edits on chrysler. I appreciate it! FixCop ( talk) 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on our talk page on the Washington Presidentiak election. I believe Dennis, while trying to aid Wikipedia, has over stepped the boundaries regarding biases in showing counties in the maps. I believe the pie chart to be a poor use of space in the infoboxes, but I fear he will have me blocked for speaking out. Can you help me make sure the mos are restored? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer ( talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ PalmerTheGolfer:, thanks. Sadly it also resulted in the notice just above your comment. Springee ( talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ PalmerTheGolfer:, this might be thrown at me later there are a lot of claims of hounding going around. Those claims are problematic because wp:hounding isn't just, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." It also includes this important sentence, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (emphasis mine). If an editor is making a series of changes to a number of articles then it isn't hounding get involved with those additional articles. It's unfortunate that a generally good editor is edit warring and throwing out such accusations (I've been on the receiving end as well) simply because others don't agree. Even worse when local consensus (of just a few editors) is clearly against the change. Anyway, I would suggest created a RfC to address the issue. Springee ( talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
History of General Motors into
General Motors. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Since these guys insist on playing this charade, it's probably worth it to put your !vote on the discussion so that later on, *cough* someone doesn't claim you didn't oppose it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.
Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?
I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.
This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved. Stepho talk 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Please do not refactor or remove other editors' comments at talk pages as you have done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is no proof yet that the present IP is a sockpuppet of HughD, although the duck test would seem to indicate it. But that is not relevant, because removing comments possibly (or even probably) made by blocked users is not an exception to WP:TPO, which is a behavioural guideline that we are expected to follow for good reason. You may be confusing the situation with the practice of automatically reverting contributions of site-banned users, but there is a very real difference between that and doing the same with a suspected sock of a blocked user. I hope you'll understand that the text I've restored is content that I think is useful, as well as content that had already been replied to by Doc James. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus."I do not accept that it is appropriate to apply that to the dialogue that occurred at WT:MED. I do understand your frustration with this editor and respect the investment you have made in attempting to prevent disruption from him. However, my experience is that automatically reverting contributions by blocked (not banned) users without any consideration of the value of those contributions is counter-productive more often than not. You only have to look at User talk:HughD to see a previously constructive editor who got a "bee-in-his-bonnet" about US politics and went off the rails. You need to ask yourself what long-term outcome you're looking for? If you want to play "whack-a-mole" with an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses in the hope that he'll get fed up, you're on the right track. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to see his energies diverted into useful editing, you need to stop discouraging the contributions that have some potential value, and reserve the WP:RBI treatment for the clearly unconstructive ones. You've been here very nearly as long as I have, so you'll have your own experiences, and your assessment of what's best may differ from mine, but I hope you can accept that I'm trying to give advice that I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that HD, ya think? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Anmccaff:, smells like it. Look at all the IPs I dealt with a few weeks back. This one is doing some of the same things. We have tagging vs fixing. IP address that is hard to trace. Starts by creating a user page as an ip. Clearly knows their way around Wikipedia. Not certain like some of the previous cases but smells none the less. Springee ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thanks for this [6] DN ( talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 ( talk) 19:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
I see it was declined Checkuser but the behavior pattern does seem clear enough to me as well. Dmcq ( talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ford Pinto you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Power~enwiki --
Power~enwiki (
talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Hugo Head? Odd timing, and whelped just before the latest Hughsock was. Dunno, though. Might be pure coincidence. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Anmccaff:, do you hvae a link? BTW, did you see this one? [ [7]] Springee ( talk) 01:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@
Anmccaff:, there isn't a question regarding Hugh and Ford P. All you have to do is look at the complaints he just posted. Some of those are nearly verbatim from his arguments made during the Pinto times. I bet large sections are copy paste. Even if they aren't the arguments are clearly the same. EC is a bit different because this isn't a new account settling the same old scores. The behavior is similar in terms of formatting. The part that really gives that one away is HughD created a template that, in two years, he was the only one to use it. Then a brand new editor uses it 4 times in one month. Hmmm... Hopefully the block hammer will happen quickly so the Pinto article can get through the GA review. There are some things that need a bit of work.
Springee (
talk) 03:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The article
Ford Pinto you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ford Pinto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Power~enwiki --
Power~enwiki (
talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Marquardtika ( talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:
I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking for the old content of a redirect just click on history of the article. You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/wiki/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live? Springee ( talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee ( talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I admire your patience at The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks . I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.
I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?
I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).
NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And it was promptly removed...
Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article?
Springee (
talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors. 1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy, see here. 2. Your edit here moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".
If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.
Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Easy as Pie!...
3.1415926535897932 AnønʘmøưṨ 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
There is no link provided for your rfc request on the admin board which you posted (only red link): ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Could you fix it. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, Fixed! Springee ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's important to be measured, careful and respectful -- and I'm trying to see where this is going to fall out.
![]() |
A Chrysler PT Cruiser for you! |
Thank you for your constructive edits on chrysler. I appreciate it! FixCop ( talk) 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on our talk page on the Washington Presidentiak election. I believe Dennis, while trying to aid Wikipedia, has over stepped the boundaries regarding biases in showing counties in the maps. I believe the pie chart to be a poor use of space in the infoboxes, but I fear he will have me blocked for speaking out. Can you help me make sure the mos are restored? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer ( talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ PalmerTheGolfer:, thanks. Sadly it also resulted in the notice just above your comment. Springee ( talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@ PalmerTheGolfer:, this might be thrown at me later there are a lot of claims of hounding going around. Those claims are problematic because wp:hounding isn't just, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." It also includes this important sentence, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (emphasis mine). If an editor is making a series of changes to a number of articles then it isn't hounding get involved with those additional articles. It's unfortunate that a generally good editor is edit warring and throwing out such accusations (I've been on the receiving end as well) simply because others don't agree. Even worse when local consensus (of just a few editors) is clearly against the change. Anyway, I would suggest created a RfC to address the issue. Springee ( talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
History of General Motors into
General Motors. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Since these guys insist on playing this charade, it's probably worth it to put your !vote on the discussion so that later on, *cough* someone doesn't claim you didn't oppose it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.
Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?
I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.
This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved. Stepho talk 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Please do not refactor or remove other editors' comments at talk pages as you have done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is no proof yet that the present IP is a sockpuppet of HughD, although the duck test would seem to indicate it. But that is not relevant, because removing comments possibly (or even probably) made by blocked users is not an exception to WP:TPO, which is a behavioural guideline that we are expected to follow for good reason. You may be confusing the situation with the practice of automatically reverting contributions of site-banned users, but there is a very real difference between that and doing the same with a suspected sock of a blocked user. I hope you'll understand that the text I've restored is content that I think is useful, as well as content that had already been replied to by Doc James. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus."I do not accept that it is appropriate to apply that to the dialogue that occurred at WT:MED. I do understand your frustration with this editor and respect the investment you have made in attempting to prevent disruption from him. However, my experience is that automatically reverting contributions by blocked (not banned) users without any consideration of the value of those contributions is counter-productive more often than not. You only have to look at User talk:HughD to see a previously constructive editor who got a "bee-in-his-bonnet" about US politics and went off the rails. You need to ask yourself what long-term outcome you're looking for? If you want to play "whack-a-mole" with an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses in the hope that he'll get fed up, you're on the right track. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to see his energies diverted into useful editing, you need to stop discouraging the contributions that have some potential value, and reserve the WP:RBI treatment for the clearly unconstructive ones. You've been here very nearly as long as I have, so you'll have your own experiences, and your assessment of what's best may differ from mine, but I hope you can accept that I'm trying to give advice that I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that HD, ya think? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Anmccaff:, smells like it. Look at all the IPs I dealt with a few weeks back. This one is doing some of the same things. We have tagging vs fixing. IP address that is hard to trace. Starts by creating a user page as an ip. Clearly knows their way around Wikipedia. Not certain like some of the previous cases but smells none the less. Springee ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thanks for this [6] DN ( talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 ( talk) 19:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
I see it was declined Checkuser but the behavior pattern does seem clear enough to me as well. Dmcq ( talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ford Pinto you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Power~enwiki --
Power~enwiki (
talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Hugo Head? Odd timing, and whelped just before the latest Hughsock was. Dunno, though. Might be pure coincidence. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Anmccaff:, do you hvae a link? BTW, did you see this one? [ [7]] Springee ( talk) 01:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@
Anmccaff:, there isn't a question regarding Hugh and Ford P. All you have to do is look at the complaints he just posted. Some of those are nearly verbatim from his arguments made during the Pinto times. I bet large sections are copy paste. Even if they aren't the arguments are clearly the same. EC is a bit different because this isn't a new account settling the same old scores. The behavior is similar in terms of formatting. The part that really gives that one away is HughD created a template that, in two years, he was the only one to use it. Then a brand new editor uses it 4 times in one month. Hmmm... Hopefully the block hammer will happen quickly so the Pinto article can get through the GA review. There are some things that need a bit of work.
Springee (
talk) 03:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The article
Ford Pinto you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ford Pinto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Power~enwiki --
Power~enwiki (
talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Marquardtika ( talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)