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 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild:, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos [ [1]]. Thanks for letting me know. Springee ( talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild:, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE. Springee ( talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;
To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013.
If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @ Darrenhusted:, this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee ( talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, i was working on it, Kvalin ( talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather -- Limpscash ( talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.
Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig ( talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - theWOLFchild 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.
Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners [2]? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) @ Snooganssnoogans:, sure thing. Springee ( talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. -- NeilN talk to me 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.- these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:, understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors. Springee ( talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
(Removed)
@ BullRangifer:, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee ( talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please do not post the content of emails that other users have sent you on-wiki. I have redacted the text and hidden the content under RD5. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, was the spacing on this deliberate? I ask because the the top half that you added an hour earlier looks like a separate, unsigned edit now, and the bottom half you added later, but with your earlier signature, is now highlited, but It's not clear why. FYI - theWOLFchild 04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Springee, in order not to have to much details on the RFC page some edits / changes which can show how it works:
a australian ip eliminates a misinformation in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=831764809
BilCat reverted in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831764809
Stewartsoda adds a reference in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831817374
just so fine to have reference ... what can we do?
Stewartsoda adds a reference in Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=831872773
Bingo. Self referencing by Wikipedia completed. Now we traced one single point ... how much more cases of wikipedia effect are existing?
A single case is not the problem ... systemically sowing invented facts without proves over years ... that is a real problem. People whose mission it is to distort perception just laugh at how easy it is. Making a hoax disappearing out of the world is much harder. -- Tom ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You've reverted a number of edits by sockpuppets on the basis of WP:DENY. The DENY essay advocates reverting vamdalism immediately and without fanfare, however I don't see anything about routinely deleting content simply because it was contributed by a sock. I've come across a few of these edits [3] [4] [5] [6] that are potentially constructive and certainly not blatant vandalism. In particular, I would consider this to be a well-written and helpful addition to the project.
Is there a policy or common practice that supports this type of wholesale reversion? I don't often deal with sockpuppets and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me. I understand that you're dealing with a persistent sockmaster but just want to make sure that we're not losing valuable content in the process. – dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Springee, please have a look at Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia. I did my best. Minor faults on talkpages can happen ... but it should not in Articles ;-) Best -- Tom ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is a lot of overhead and "fairytales" in other Parts of history - if you can shorten some of it ??
WikiProject Firearms Barnstar | |
The unauthorized WikiProject Firearms Barnstar is hereby awarded to Springee for their support of the Project and their dedication to firearms-related articles. – Lionel( talk) 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
I would like for you to comment at ongoing discussions at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think you're input would be valuable. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I can not follow this discussions which in my opion are almost self repeating. Some parts I have read ... almost fatigued. For you as a gift this classic music. Best -- Tom ( talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Handgun page for another 96.68.58.179 sock-- RAF910 ( talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind...NeilN just blocked him.-- RAF910 ( talk) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Good question. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Barnstars Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy holidays. 2018 Holidays ( talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I’ve just noticed a certain decline in the quality (if not the volume) of the socking. Hadn’t been following him for a bit. When exactly did it get totally doolally like it is now? Qwirkle ( talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement request concerning you has been opened here. – dlthewave ☎ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As a result of the recent
arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for
polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions.
Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Withdrawn, see below.
Sandstein
22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC))
@ Sandstein:, how do I go about protesting this warning. I was not accused of any of the above so I'm not sure why I would be sanctioned/warned for any of the above. Springee ( talk) 10:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I was scratching my head as well when I read that. While perhaps not explicitly forbidden, it's certainly not standard practice to open an AE report on three editors at the same time. I skimmed through AE archives and did not find bundled reports. The standard AE report form also deals with reporting users individually. This is undue process in my view, because if there is AE action, it should be judged individually and not collectively. You should mention this in your appeal. Regards, -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you thanking me via WP:Echo for the revert at the Human sexual activity article. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Human sexual activity#Lead image. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Springfree. Just letting you know that I'm not trying to remove content about station wagons, just have it located in the right article. Station wagon is a body style, so (like sedans, coupes, convertibles, etc) it is covered in car body styles instead of car classifications. Having it in both is unnecessary duplication and can lead to WP:FORK. If you prefer the version of the summary that's in the Car Classification article, feel free to move it to the Car Body Style article. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
[9] Could I have your blessing to help improve the SS article? DN ( talk) 03:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
You appear to have just put a notice on the page of User:Snoog on his Talk page. This appears to be his 3rd incident over five days, first with Peter Navarro, then Mitch McConnell with another editor, and now on your notice to him regarding another page he is editing. Did you see this? CodexJustin ( talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, this is the edit I found problematic [ [10]]. I don't know the backdrop other than this edit focuses on the editor and contains a personal attack. I certainly disagree that the article is worse for the other editor being there. If you were referring to the other comments on Snoog's talk page I wasn't involved so I didn't want to comment. Springee ( talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
His referring to you as 'creepy' has to be unpleasant. He did something similar to me on the Talk page for Peter Navarro with aspersions over the weekend. Several editors there believe that the Peter Navarro article has Quotefarm problems which need some tending. Any thoughts on how to make progress on the Quotefarm issues in that article? CodexJustin ( talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, the comment wasn’t directed at me. I just find it very problematic. As for the quote farm, well I don’t see an obvious answer. This is something a number of editors are guilty of. More eyes and consensus to oppose that type of text, even if the general material is due, is a first line answer. That doesn’t always work. Ideally would be policy or guideline that could be cited. Less effective is an essay. Take a look at this discussion [ [11]] Springee ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That was really an impressive link with admin participating. To bring this into a single point for the article, this is the comment that was made regarding Peter Navarro which stated: "Views on trade - the first para looks OK, but the next 3 paras seem a quotefarm just collection of critics that are UNDUE and just is non-BLP, nothing to do with him or affecting his life, from Markbassett". Can this Quoteform be fixed since other editors are requesting it? CodexJustin ( talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, for what it's worth I feel this comment [ [12]] has the appearance of not being motivated by the topic. Springee ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
and that's that... Buffs ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I've moved one of your comments here [13], since you seemed to be replying the main heading and not the subheading. Please undo this if you oppose it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini ( talk) 01:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I haven't read through the discussions completely, but thought that these [14] [15] and the associated discussions at WP:BLPN & WP:NPOVN might be an example of what was discussed at WT:V - Ryk72 talk 05:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) @ Ryk72:, thanks for the suggestion. I've been slow getting back to that discussion and I haven't figured out if the Jack Posobiec page works well or not. I guess the bigger issue is I'm not overly familiar with the material. Other than the questionable claim of "internet troll" in Wiki voice I really have no knowledge of the subject. I would welcome advice or suggestions that you might have. Springee ( talk) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The content you proposed on the talk page does not include any reliable sources to assert non-association with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, merely Posobiec's own denials. Your attempts to equate the significance of Posobiec's denials with the claims of apparently every reliable source represents a false balance.On review, however, this seems a minor aspect of the discussions there and at the article Talk page. The discussions also seem highly politicised so it might be a muddier example than desired to clearly demonstrate the points raised at WT:V. - Ryk72 talk 04:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice about Climate change. It seems that the number ofarticles with discretionary sanctions is endless. A cynic might think that such were a way of controlling and directing outcomes. I don't expect to stick my nose in much, at my age whatever happens, happens and will have zero effect on me. Oldperson ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
How do you get someone to close an RfC? There are a couple that we've both participated in that have been open for months. What the heck? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
HappyHolidayCheer!! |
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
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 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild:, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos [ [1]]. Thanks for letting me know. Springee ( talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild:, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE. Springee ( talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;
To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013.
If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @ Darrenhusted:, this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee ( talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, i was working on it, Kvalin ( talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather -- Limpscash ( talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.
Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig ( talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - theWOLFchild 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.
Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners [2]? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) @ Snooganssnoogans:, sure thing. Springee ( talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. -- NeilN talk to me 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.- these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:, understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors. Springee ( talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
(Removed)
@ BullRangifer:, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee ( talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please do not post the content of emails that other users have sent you on-wiki. I have redacted the text and hidden the content under RD5. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, was the spacing on this deliberate? I ask because the the top half that you added an hour earlier looks like a separate, unsigned edit now, and the bottom half you added later, but with your earlier signature, is now highlited, but It's not clear why. FYI - theWOLFchild 04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Springee, in order not to have to much details on the RFC page some edits / changes which can show how it works:
a australian ip eliminates a misinformation in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=831764809
BilCat reverted in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831764809
Stewartsoda adds a reference in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831817374
just so fine to have reference ... what can we do?
Stewartsoda adds a reference in Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=831872773
Bingo. Self referencing by Wikipedia completed. Now we traced one single point ... how much more cases of wikipedia effect are existing?
A single case is not the problem ... systemically sowing invented facts without proves over years ... that is a real problem. People whose mission it is to distort perception just laugh at how easy it is. Making a hoax disappearing out of the world is much harder. -- Tom ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You've reverted a number of edits by sockpuppets on the basis of WP:DENY. The DENY essay advocates reverting vamdalism immediately and without fanfare, however I don't see anything about routinely deleting content simply because it was contributed by a sock. I've come across a few of these edits [3] [4] [5] [6] that are potentially constructive and certainly not blatant vandalism. In particular, I would consider this to be a well-written and helpful addition to the project.
Is there a policy or common practice that supports this type of wholesale reversion? I don't often deal with sockpuppets and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me. I understand that you're dealing with a persistent sockmaster but just want to make sure that we're not losing valuable content in the process. – dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Springee, please have a look at Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia. I did my best. Minor faults on talkpages can happen ... but it should not in Articles ;-) Best -- Tom ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is a lot of overhead and "fairytales" in other Parts of history - if you can shorten some of it ??
WikiProject Firearms Barnstar | |
The unauthorized WikiProject Firearms Barnstar is hereby awarded to Springee for their support of the Project and their dedication to firearms-related articles. – Lionel( talk) 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC) |
I would like for you to comment at ongoing discussions at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think you're input would be valuable. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I can not follow this discussions which in my opion are almost self repeating. Some parts I have read ... almost fatigued. For you as a gift this classic music. Best -- Tom ( talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Handgun page for another 96.68.58.179 sock-- RAF910 ( talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind...NeilN just blocked him.-- RAF910 ( talk) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Good question. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Barnstars Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy holidays. 2018 Holidays ( talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I’ve just noticed a certain decline in the quality (if not the volume) of the socking. Hadn’t been following him for a bit. When exactly did it get totally doolally like it is now? Qwirkle ( talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
An arbitration enforcement request concerning you has been opened here. – dlthewave ☎ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As a result of the recent
arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for
polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions.
Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Withdrawn, see below.
Sandstein
22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC))
@ Sandstein:, how do I go about protesting this warning. I was not accused of any of the above so I'm not sure why I would be sanctioned/warned for any of the above. Springee ( talk) 10:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I was scratching my head as well when I read that. While perhaps not explicitly forbidden, it's certainly not standard practice to open an AE report on three editors at the same time. I skimmed through AE archives and did not find bundled reports. The standard AE report form also deals with reporting users individually. This is undue process in my view, because if there is AE action, it should be judged individually and not collectively. You should mention this in your appeal. Regards, -- Pudeo ( talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you thanking me via WP:Echo for the revert at the Human sexual activity article. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Human sexual activity#Lead image. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Springfree. Just letting you know that I'm not trying to remove content about station wagons, just have it located in the right article. Station wagon is a body style, so (like sedans, coupes, convertibles, etc) it is covered in car body styles instead of car classifications. Having it in both is unnecessary duplication and can lead to WP:FORK. If you prefer the version of the summary that's in the Car Classification article, feel free to move it to the Car Body Style article. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
[9] Could I have your blessing to help improve the SS article? DN ( talk) 03:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |
You appear to have just put a notice on the page of User:Snoog on his Talk page. This appears to be his 3rd incident over five days, first with Peter Navarro, then Mitch McConnell with another editor, and now on your notice to him regarding another page he is editing. Did you see this? CodexJustin ( talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, this is the edit I found problematic [ [10]]. I don't know the backdrop other than this edit focuses on the editor and contains a personal attack. I certainly disagree that the article is worse for the other editor being there. If you were referring to the other comments on Snoog's talk page I wasn't involved so I didn't want to comment. Springee ( talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
His referring to you as 'creepy' has to be unpleasant. He did something similar to me on the Talk page for Peter Navarro with aspersions over the weekend. Several editors there believe that the Peter Navarro article has Quotefarm problems which need some tending. Any thoughts on how to make progress on the Quotefarm issues in that article? CodexJustin ( talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, the comment wasn’t directed at me. I just find it very problematic. As for the quote farm, well I don’t see an obvious answer. This is something a number of editors are guilty of. More eyes and consensus to oppose that type of text, even if the general material is due, is a first line answer. That doesn’t always work. Ideally would be policy or guideline that could be cited. Less effective is an essay. Take a look at this discussion [ [11]] Springee ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That was really an impressive link with admin participating. To bring this into a single point for the article, this is the comment that was made regarding Peter Navarro which stated: "Views on trade - the first para looks OK, but the next 3 paras seem a quotefarm just collection of critics that are UNDUE and just is non-BLP, nothing to do with him or affecting his life, from Markbassett". Can this Quoteform be fixed since other editors are requesting it? CodexJustin ( talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
CodexJustin, for what it's worth I feel this comment [ [12]] has the appearance of not being motivated by the topic. Springee ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
and that's that... Buffs ( talk) 16:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I've moved one of your comments here [13], since you seemed to be replying the main heading and not the subheading. Please undo this if you oppose it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini ( talk) 01:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I haven't read through the discussions completely, but thought that these [14] [15] and the associated discussions at WP:BLPN & WP:NPOVN might be an example of what was discussed at WT:V - Ryk72 talk 05:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) @ Ryk72:, thanks for the suggestion. I've been slow getting back to that discussion and I haven't figured out if the Jack Posobiec page works well or not. I guess the bigger issue is I'm not overly familiar with the material. Other than the questionable claim of "internet troll" in Wiki voice I really have no knowledge of the subject. I would welcome advice or suggestions that you might have. Springee ( talk) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The content you proposed on the talk page does not include any reliable sources to assert non-association with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, merely Posobiec's own denials. Your attempts to equate the significance of Posobiec's denials with the claims of apparently every reliable source represents a false balance.On review, however, this seems a minor aspect of the discussions there and at the article Talk page. The discussions also seem highly politicised so it might be a muddier example than desired to clearly demonstrate the points raised at WT:V. - Ryk72 talk 04:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice about Climate change. It seems that the number ofarticles with discretionary sanctions is endless. A cynic might think that such were a way of controlling and directing outcomes. I don't expect to stick my nose in much, at my age whatever happens, happens and will have zero effect on me. Oldperson ( talk) 22:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
How do you get someone to close an RfC? There are a couple that we've both participated in that have been open for months. What the heck? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
HappyHolidayCheer!! |
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |