![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Charlie Kirk inciting the insurrection in a now-deleted Tweet. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. There is something strange going on that, suddenly, a lot of the pages that I've worked on are being attacked and then out of nowhere a [ COI] is levied by someone that I haven't even had issue with. I would not discredit the idea that there is some coordination happening. Any insights or recommendations would be much appreciated. QRep2020 ( talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how you managed to warn him over 10 minutes before I did. I noticed their behavior on the PragerU page and then at RSN. I took a look at their contributions and I found the same tedious arguments repeated ad nauseam. They seriously need to learn to WP:DROPTHESTICK or else I would report them to ANI or somewhere else. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What an innocent looking IP who magically found their way to the talk page of some obscure congressman. And, who magically decided to disagree with your argument and "support" the other fellow. I'm sure this IP doesn't belong to anyone in that talk page. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation at Pausing RFC to the prior RFC participants, but... I have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Would you say this is canvassing or not? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, lol Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I requested a formal close at WP:ANC. You can find that request here. There's normally a high back log at ANC, so I think it would take at least a week before we get a close. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A few months back you tried to encourage my to cool it down in a heated content dispute. You were right, but I blew it off. Just wanted to say I actually now appreciate what you were trying to do and I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I admire how you've been handling editorial disputes on this site and hope you keep up the good work. Best, Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. Just FYI, Hipal is pinged in the second paragraph, so you might consider removing your comment for redundancy reasons and to save space for the ensuing discussion. Not a big deal either way. Looking forward to resolving this issue. Hope you're doing well! Jlevi ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it to ANI, I would take it to AE, since it comes under discretionary sanctions for post-1992 politics and the editor has been warned. TFD ( talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Just an observation: in topic areas where people often become dismissive, combative, or take discussion in counter-productive directions, I appreciate that you seem to make an effort to stay on topic and be civil. It's helpful, even if we disagree on a few things. That's all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Heya Springee. Hope you're okay with
this refactor I did. That discussion was becoming quite long, and the RS/DUE question on Y!N/Athelea/the individual article seems separate from how to integrate that detail once if consensus has emerged for inclusion. To improve flow of discussion and avoid tangles, I think this refactor makes sense. Given that your responses include statements about both, I recognize that this might be tricky for you. Depending on your preferences, feel free to: 1) leave as is, 2) refactor your own responses and add those responding to the DUE/RS question to the earlier subsection, or 3) just revert my refactor. Thanks!
Jlevi (
talk) 13:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee, just want you to know that I edited a comment on the Tucker talk page that you responded to previously, because it might have been unclear earlier. Letting you know here so you aren't taken by surprise. Llll5032 ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hi Springee, I just wanted to say, I was fully convinced after reading your thorough, logical, and civil comments on Talk:Andy Ngo. Your dedicated commitment toward improving the neutrality of WP is greatly appreciated. Great work! Thomas Meng ( talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
Awarded for integrity in the process of debating and discussing questions surrounding the CPAC stage shape and the subsequent RfC, and for accepting the consensus with good grace. With respect, * Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
–== Well there you go ==
There is a list of at least one thing on which we are in complete agreement :-) Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I was wondering if you had a quick synopsis of the long conversation that is going on over there. I stumbled on it because the IP is active on a page I monitor and has, in a lot of ways, replicated that discussion on several pages. I think he wants it to be a WP:FORUM rather than constructive editing. Any insight you could offer would be helpful. Squatch347 ( talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the other editor started an ANI discussion. In case you'd like to weigh in: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24 Squatch347 ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Springee, I was surprised to see this edit which describes a group of people "surrounding" Strickland in Wiki voice, even though that claim came from a quoted tweet by Ngo within the source. You're usually quite attentive about attributing this type of claim, particularly when it comes from a questionable person in a questionable source, so you should be well aware of why it would be necessary in this case. Please try to be more careful in the future. – dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
When I come back, I look forward to taking the AANES entry up to Good Article status. Outside of professional Kurdologists (I actually know the two leading authorities on Kurds from the West... providing the one hasn't recently karked it on us!), and those currently on the ground now with access to physical Ottoman, French, and Ba'athist documents, I reckon I'd be right up there among the top dozen or so people in the English-speaking world who have all the possible resources on this (and other related articles). Out-of-print books that are very hard to find... It might even come to the point where I'll need to translate some documents myself! Plus I have access to JSTOR, etc. TomReagan90 ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Springee, would you mind adding "covid" to the DS awareness notice at the top of your talk page? In return, I won't add my usual blue notice! All the best!
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This, in suggesting "sock", is pretty unbecoming. Got any particular reason for posing that, even as a question? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pages777. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for pointing out my comment that was a second vote. That RfC got so long I completely forgot I voted in the beginning! Appreciate you pointing it out. –– FormalDude( talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
I was wondering if you'd be interested in challenging the recent RfC close regarding inclusion of "journalist" in the lead at Andy Ngo. I know you're an advocate for omitting contentious content from BLPs when there's no consensus, and the conclusion "Now, there is no consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Nor, however, is there a consensus to obliviate that term from the lead. The status quo should be maintained." seems to go against that. Perhaps we could come up with something together to bring to the closer? – dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been reverted by both Grayfell and NorthBySouthBaranof just this morning, and both provided false reasonings for doing so. Does anyone spend two minutes making sure they are correct before undoing others' work anymore? Am I just old fashioned? Matza Pizza ( talk) 13:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. Regarding your recent revert of my edit at [3]. I think the edit is relevant, as it shows her attitude to the covid response. I can see your point about the wording, so how about something like this:
Owen's wording though is just quoted, and I don't think it is rhetorical, given the context, and other statements, she, other Fox News presenters, and Ted Cruz have made about Australia. Owen's statement, as reported, was "the U.S. military should invade Australia because it has turned into a “police state,” comparing the country’s government to the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.", which is pretty strong. This op-ed piece gives some useful perspective. [4]. The refs are strong, too - news.com.au is one of Australia's prime news sources, time.com obviously strong, and the Lowy Institute very well regarded for research.
It is recent, but I don't agree that it's WP:UNDUE (only two short sentences) or subject to WP:RECENT to be not included (directly relevant to paragraphs above).
Let me know your comments with the revised wording. peterl ( talk) 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if this content had been discussed previously, and indeed it has! I believe it's a BLP violation without proper context(aka Owens was joking). This content is being re-added(as well as my talk page discussion on the matter being deleted). Maybe have a look if you get the chance. SmolBrane ( talk) 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
When the mod is biased af, there's no point in trying to change the article anymore. Waste of our time. so sad when even wikipedia is stuffed with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N432138 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss your opinion here, away from some of the less civil discussion on the page. I personally haven't been around the political wiki enough to see problems of people adding random controversial quotes to pages of people they don't like. I wanted to point out the page Political positions of Donald Trump, it uses his policy decisions and articles on his certain views to form his political positions. But sometimes it uses quotes, likely in areas that garner less attention, hence fewer articles to give their interpretation of what the quotes mean. An example would be the California drought; they added a few quotes - establishing that one of those was incorrect - then gave some context behind what he was commenting on. It seems that the lack of attention given to this opinion forced them to use a style closer to the one used on Prager's page (enough attention to establish notability, but not enough to expand on the quotes' meaning). Do you think that it's still inappropriate on Trump's page? In terms of the climate change quotes used on Prager's page I think it should stay. Using some OR we can see that the effect of climate change is in fact not idiotic or irrational when consider its impact on hunger and general health, rising sea levels and more intense weather events [4]. We can also see that he misrepresents the science when he says that concern about the climate crisis is in anyway fear of extinction of the biosphere, when in fact none of the science argues for extinction. It argues for biodiversity losses. [5] [6] [7] An extinction of the biosphere entails all living things dead, I have only heard about such a thing proposed in things like when the sun swallows the earth in roughly 5 billion years As we can see, despite not denying climate change, his opinions on the impacts of climate change or almost equivocal to denial of climate change. It's essentially like moving the goalposts, first it was that climate change was not real, now it's that it will not have any impact. The stated claims are just as wrong as denial of climate change in my opinion. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() |
Indeed. Thanks for the catch! Was on a bit of a tear earlier with reverting vandalism. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 03:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
In response to your last post... Atsme 💬 📧 14:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Finally straightened out that situation. Took too long, but here we are. Thank you for all your help. Matza Pizza ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Would you please provide the excellent advice you gave here to Ivan VA? His comment here shows he needs your help to understand this business about Greenwald and other SPS. "Credentials" don't mean anything here. Heck, we have even indeffed a Nobel Prize laureate, and he presumably might have known his subject better than anyone else on earth at one time. Talk about credentials! They mean nothing here without RS. People change, sources change, and consensus changes. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:51, 11 December 2021 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Charlie Kirk inciting the insurrection in a now-deleted Tweet. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. There is something strange going on that, suddenly, a lot of the pages that I've worked on are being attacked and then out of nowhere a [ COI] is levied by someone that I haven't even had issue with. I would not discredit the idea that there is some coordination happening. Any insights or recommendations would be much appreciated. QRep2020 ( talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how you managed to warn him over 10 minutes before I did. I noticed their behavior on the PragerU page and then at RSN. I took a look at their contributions and I found the same tedious arguments repeated ad nauseam. They seriously need to learn to WP:DROPTHESTICK or else I would report them to ANI or somewhere else. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
What an innocent looking IP who magically found their way to the talk page of some obscure congressman. And, who magically decided to disagree with your argument and "support" the other fellow. I'm sure this IP doesn't belong to anyone in that talk page. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation at Pausing RFC to the prior RFC participants, but... I have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Would you say this is canvassing or not? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, lol Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I requested a formal close at WP:ANC. You can find that request here. There's normally a high back log at ANC, so I think it would take at least a week before we get a close. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
A few months back you tried to encourage my to cool it down in a heated content dispute. You were right, but I blew it off. Just wanted to say I actually now appreciate what you were trying to do and I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I admire how you've been handling editorial disputes on this site and hope you keep up the good work. Best, Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. Just FYI, Hipal is pinged in the second paragraph, so you might consider removing your comment for redundancy reasons and to save space for the ensuing discussion. Not a big deal either way. Looking forward to resolving this issue. Hope you're doing well! Jlevi ( talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't take it to ANI, I would take it to AE, since it comes under discretionary sanctions for post-1992 politics and the editor has been warned. TFD ( talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Just an observation: in topic areas where people often become dismissive, combative, or take discussion in counter-productive directions, I appreciate that you seem to make an effort to stay on topic and be civil. It's helpful, even if we disagree on a few things. That's all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Heya Springee. Hope you're okay with
this refactor I did. That discussion was becoming quite long, and the RS/DUE question on Y!N/Athelea/the individual article seems separate from how to integrate that detail once if consensus has emerged for inclusion. To improve flow of discussion and avoid tangles, I think this refactor makes sense. Given that your responses include statements about both, I recognize that this might be tricky for you. Depending on your preferences, feel free to: 1) leave as is, 2) refactor your own responses and add those responding to the DUE/RS question to the earlier subsection, or 3) just revert my refactor. Thanks!
Jlevi (
talk) 13:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee, just want you to know that I edited a comment on the Tucker talk page that you responded to previously, because it might have been unclear earlier. Letting you know here so you aren't taken by surprise. Llll5032 ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Hi Springee, I just wanted to say, I was fully convinced after reading your thorough, logical, and civil comments on Talk:Andy Ngo. Your dedicated commitment toward improving the neutrality of WP is greatly appreciated. Great work! Thomas Meng ( talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
Awarded for integrity in the process of debating and discussing questions surrounding the CPAC stage shape and the subsequent RfC, and for accepting the consensus with good grace. With respect, * Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
–== Well there you go ==
There is a list of at least one thing on which we are in complete agreement :-) Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I was wondering if you had a quick synopsis of the long conversation that is going on over there. I stumbled on it because the IP is active on a page I monitor and has, in a lot of ways, replicated that discussion on several pages. I think he wants it to be a WP:FORUM rather than constructive editing. Any insight you could offer would be helpful. Squatch347 ( talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the other editor started an ANI discussion. In case you'd like to weigh in: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24 Squatch347 ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Springee, I was surprised to see this edit which describes a group of people "surrounding" Strickland in Wiki voice, even though that claim came from a quoted tweet by Ngo within the source. You're usually quite attentive about attributing this type of claim, particularly when it comes from a questionable person in a questionable source, so you should be well aware of why it would be necessary in this case. Please try to be more careful in the future. – dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
When I come back, I look forward to taking the AANES entry up to Good Article status. Outside of professional Kurdologists (I actually know the two leading authorities on Kurds from the West... providing the one hasn't recently karked it on us!), and those currently on the ground now with access to physical Ottoman, French, and Ba'athist documents, I reckon I'd be right up there among the top dozen or so people in the English-speaking world who have all the possible resources on this (and other related articles). Out-of-print books that are very hard to find... It might even come to the point where I'll need to translate some documents myself! Plus I have access to JSTOR, etc. TomReagan90 ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Springee, would you mind adding "covid" to the DS awareness notice at the top of your talk page? In return, I won't add my usual blue notice! All the best!
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This, in suggesting "sock", is pretty unbecoming. Got any particular reason for posing that, even as a question? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pages777. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for pointing out my comment that was a second vote. That RfC got so long I completely forgot I voted in the beginning! Appreciate you pointing it out. –– FormalDude( talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC) |
I was wondering if you'd be interested in challenging the recent RfC close regarding inclusion of "journalist" in the lead at Andy Ngo. I know you're an advocate for omitting contentious content from BLPs when there's no consensus, and the conclusion "Now, there is no consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Nor, however, is there a consensus to obliviate that term from the lead. The status quo should be maintained." seems to go against that. Perhaps we could come up with something together to bring to the closer? – dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been reverted by both Grayfell and NorthBySouthBaranof just this morning, and both provided false reasonings for doing so. Does anyone spend two minutes making sure they are correct before undoing others' work anymore? Am I just old fashioned? Matza Pizza ( talk) 13:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Springee. Regarding your recent revert of my edit at [3]. I think the edit is relevant, as it shows her attitude to the covid response. I can see your point about the wording, so how about something like this:
Owen's wording though is just quoted, and I don't think it is rhetorical, given the context, and other statements, she, other Fox News presenters, and Ted Cruz have made about Australia. Owen's statement, as reported, was "the U.S. military should invade Australia because it has turned into a “police state,” comparing the country’s government to the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.", which is pretty strong. This op-ed piece gives some useful perspective. [4]. The refs are strong, too - news.com.au is one of Australia's prime news sources, time.com obviously strong, and the Lowy Institute very well regarded for research.
It is recent, but I don't agree that it's WP:UNDUE (only two short sentences) or subject to WP:RECENT to be not included (directly relevant to paragraphs above).
Let me know your comments with the revised wording. peterl ( talk) 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if this content had been discussed previously, and indeed it has! I believe it's a BLP violation without proper context(aka Owens was joking). This content is being re-added(as well as my talk page discussion on the matter being deleted). Maybe have a look if you get the chance. SmolBrane ( talk) 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
When the mod is biased af, there's no point in trying to change the article anymore. Waste of our time. so sad when even wikipedia is stuffed with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N432138 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss your opinion here, away from some of the less civil discussion on the page. I personally haven't been around the political wiki enough to see problems of people adding random controversial quotes to pages of people they don't like. I wanted to point out the page Political positions of Donald Trump, it uses his policy decisions and articles on his certain views to form his political positions. But sometimes it uses quotes, likely in areas that garner less attention, hence fewer articles to give their interpretation of what the quotes mean. An example would be the California drought; they added a few quotes - establishing that one of those was incorrect - then gave some context behind what he was commenting on. It seems that the lack of attention given to this opinion forced them to use a style closer to the one used on Prager's page (enough attention to establish notability, but not enough to expand on the quotes' meaning). Do you think that it's still inappropriate on Trump's page? In terms of the climate change quotes used on Prager's page I think it should stay. Using some OR we can see that the effect of climate change is in fact not idiotic or irrational when consider its impact on hunger and general health, rising sea levels and more intense weather events [4]. We can also see that he misrepresents the science when he says that concern about the climate crisis is in anyway fear of extinction of the biosphere, when in fact none of the science argues for extinction. It argues for biodiversity losses. [5] [6] [7] An extinction of the biosphere entails all living things dead, I have only heard about such a thing proposed in things like when the sun swallows the earth in roughly 5 billion years As we can see, despite not denying climate change, his opinions on the impacts of climate change or almost equivocal to denial of climate change. It's essentially like moving the goalposts, first it was that climate change was not real, now it's that it will not have any impact. The stated claims are just as wrong as denial of climate change in my opinion. Pabsoluterince ( talk) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() |
Indeed. Thanks for the catch! Was on a bit of a tear earlier with reverting vandalism. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 03:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
In response to your last post... Atsme 💬 📧 14:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Finally straightened out that situation. Took too long, but here we are. Thank you for all your help. Matza Pizza ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Would you please provide the excellent advice you gave here to Ivan VA? His comment here shows he needs your help to understand this business about Greenwald and other SPS. "Credentials" don't mean anything here. Heck, we have even indeffed a Nobel Prize laureate, and he presumably might have known his subject better than anyone else on earth at one time. Talk about credentials! They mean nothing here without RS. People change, sources change, and consensus changes. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)