Thanks for your attempts to improve these articles. As you are finding out, making positive changes -- generally, getting the articles closer to WP:NPOV -- is time-consuming and can be very frustrating. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Good grief. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment about the revisions to DataStax while I was out of the country on vacation, then I promptly forgot about it. Sorry for the unintended neglect. I hope all has been resolved - if not, let me know and I will jump in. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v252/n5480/abs/252216a0.html William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Yes, I am aware. I suggest you read the scathing AGC review, which incidentally does not reflect on Raitt at all, since she was not Minister of transport at the time, to see how you would characterise it. The "partisan" adjective serves well where it is. How else do you characterise a self-serving review? It cannot be characterised as independent, since the board paid for it. Wiki'll evaluate your fixes if you choose to make any. 66.225.160.9 ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that he's been banned, feel free to revert any of his that you find unhelpful.
He won't be missed. His protestations of innocence at his Talk page are entertaining. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain yourself on reverting my Marc Morano comment in the talk section. I only cited a source that is much more reputable than the other sources. It is a record of the US Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I will conceded this revert but urge you to not revert the recent change. I agree that the one you reverted was not a great addition, but the new change is much more informative and removed a poor personal opinion from an author that was not supported by the reference.
I am only using your talk to discuss this article since you have failed to comment on the article talk page and feel free to remove this if you agree with the most recent changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been deleting a raft of citations, pointing at the BLP noticeboard: "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli" section. I have not found this section or any discussion on the topic in a search of the archives. Can you point me to it? M.boli ( talk) 12:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my edit, I erroneously thought the topic ban ended this month. I have notified the administrator who issued the ban in the first place at User talk:Sandstein. -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I manually moved the survey image you posted to Wikipedia (English) to the Commons, where I simply turned it into an updated version of the original. This is consistent with WP:TOCOMMONS. Since we are the only eds who have commented so far, please consider just deleting this talk thread, as it would be confusing and useless to transfer it as well. TPG lets us delete talk threads if all agree to do so, and I do if you do. More, I think doing so is best. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on.
Once we settle on captions, could you please also correct the Bray and von Storch results, per this? Assuming no one comments by then. TIA, Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
not sure if you've been pinged but here is my reply [1]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Arianewiki1 ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Peter - regarding this, the reason I collapsed that section of the discussion was because it was almost entirely about Tetra's edits use of AWB, not answering the original question of capitalization standards. Since the DRN discussion ended with TQ losing access to AWB, and the goal now is to get that clear consensus, I collapsed that area to tidy up and focus on the discussion regarding capitalization, and the consideration of extending the discussion to MOS (particularly if anyone new wants to chime in). If you don't think it was appropriate, I won't challenge that - maybe it'd be worth separating what I collapsed into it's own sub-header? I'll leave that for you to consider. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You undid an edit I made, in which I had replaced 11 words with 1, and you left the edit summary Doesn't look verbose. I can only conclude that you don't know what "verbose" means. It means "using more words than necessary". So, if you can express something in 1 word, then expressing it in 11 words is verbose. Kindly don't revert the hard work of other editors if you don't understand the reason for the edit. 200.83.136.145 ( talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I certainly don't mean to be exercising ownership over Universe; apologies if it came across that way. I reverted to "Universe" simply because that's how this page has been for a long time (I checked 500 edits back as a random sample — I wasn't an active editor of that article at the time, in 2013 — and it primarily used "Universe" back then), which I consider an example of the existing consensus on this particular article. A single editor changing two of the dozens of uses of the word in that article from a proper name to a common noun strikes me as a bad idea. Wikipedia policy is to maintain consistency unless there's a consensus to change an article, I thought. It is certainly true that I prefer to treat the word "universe" as a proper name when used as the name of the Universe, but I would revert changes to be consistent if the existing version always used it as a common noun in the absence of a consensus to make the change. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know it was possible to revert a registered user's edit w/o their being notified of said revert. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you just stated that you didn't do it so that I wouldn't be notified because otherwise I'd be really irritated; to me, unless you're an unregistered user, such an act is one of disrespect and cowardice. But your reason seems to me to be that you thought it was so minor you didn't want to bother me with it, is that it? If so, then I understand and am not irritated for the reason so stated. Although, I still think "universe" should not be capitalised except perhaps in the first sentence (hence why I left that one alone); this is because in this case it acts as an opening, and the capitalisation somewhat serves as a declaration of it being the topic and such a big one (both literally and figuratively). Not sure if I made any sense whatsoever just now, but hey it made sense in my head. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, @ ASHill:, but that last sentence seemed rather rude... σ~σ — SarahTehCat
(I have deleted this conversation from my talk page. Let it be clear that I received a discretionary sanctions notice for ARBCC on March 18, in correct form and politely worded. My reply was influenced by the outcome from a mistaken accusation that I'd received a few days earlier from a different editor, and I thought that there was an intent to accuse me of something on WP:AE. I know more about DS notices now, and apologize for not knowing before.) Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Peter, At Talk:anthony watts, please don't ping-template me with every post. That's what watchlists are for. While I appreciate the effort of making it easy for me, in fact it's giving me an extra thing to do - turning off the little red flag in my user panel. I'll see what you say without that, at least at that location.
thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In
this edit, you copied in a lot of text, some of which was apparently mangled in the formatting during transport. I am guessing that most of it was an error and that you only intended to post that first paragraph. I'm going to take the liberty of removing all the rest. Please fix it if I removed too much. Never mind. You already saw it and fixed it yourself. Let me know if there's something I can help with. Thanks.
Rossami
(talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Rossami: It's great to see that editors like you would catch this sort of horror. Apologies and thanks. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh? Bring your accusation to any administrator-watched forum/noticeboard and we'll see who gets in trouble. You'll see I am a regular at these boards: JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Guy ( Help!) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I moved the existing discussion at AE to WP:AE#Peter Gulutzan. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I've commented on your recent reversions at Talk:Christopher C. Horner#Removal of well-cited material. Please don't remove well-cited material. Fuzzypeg ★ 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the original October discussion. — TPX 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
The editor Joel Lewis has deleted a lot of stuff [ [3]] from the William Happer article on the basis of lack of secondary sources. While I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, do you consider that according to Wiki rules material from primary sources should be deleted?
Thanks,
JS ( talk) 00:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that @ NotSeenHere: seems to be engaging in disruptive behaviour in the Maxime Bernier article. This user's talk page is full of people asking him/her to stop it. Specifically, this user seems to be trying to interpret articles in POV ways, rather than simply using exactly what they said. Please provide assistance. Bell1985 ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I was on User talk:Tomwsulcer and I noticed your comment under the heading Joe Barton. I have no opinion on the merits. I just wanted to suggest that rather than using external links like [4], you can use your edit of 16:23, 21 May 2017, which has a cleaner look and allows you to name the link. Respectfully, — Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Pinging you because you were the last to comment at Talk:Scott Pruitt before me. Do you have an opinion on Talk:Scott Pruitt#BRD on edits by user Marquardtika, and/or do you think the content in question is a good candidate for an RFC? The talk page discussion doesn't seem to be getting many eyes so I'm wondering what a good next step would be. Marquardtika ( talk) 19:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
-- for your kind words following my topic ban of, gosh, almost 2 years ago [5]. Time flies. I guess I should summon the energy to apply for removal of the thing. I can't recall anyone else in the Wiki Climate Wars who drew an indefinite ban..... Quite a slap in the face. Tant pis.
Truth to tell, I'm much less active here than before the late unpleasantness, and doubt that I'll ever be very active in the CC area again. As I'm sure you've noticed, the CAGW hypothesis is pretty much collapsing under its own weight. IMO, of course. Science does self-correct, eventually.
Hope all is well with you. I'm noticeably older, and slower, but we're both in (reasonably) good health. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please help police this nonsense. 199.7.156.136 ( talk) 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I received criticisms about this edit on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page from two editors. One of them was a properly-formed warning. One of them included what looks like a discretionary sanctions alert regarding American politics, but it isn't in the edit filter log and I don't know that it's valid. To prevent people from being sure I received such an alert, I removed the criticisms and my replies. Click here to see them. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nardog ( talk) 04:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. [6] But shouldn't the behavioural issue be taken up on the user's talk page in the first instance?
I have not pinged them here as they've asked me not to post to their talk page [7] and so I'm guessing a ping would not be welcome either, but I'm of two minds and your advice on that would be welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst ( talk) 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC) |
Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Since at least November 2018, you have repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric by making ludicrous assertions that there is a BLP violation in covering falsehoods and lies by prominent climate change deniers:
You have been a participant in discussions [13] where consensus was reached on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list [14] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." Back in November 2018, [15] it can be seen as an inadvertent error on your part to claim Climate Feedback was not a RS. However, when you continue doing so in October 2019 [16] and January 2020 [17], as well as remove other well-sourced text, it amounts to tendentious editing and raises serious questions of your ability to edit on topics related to climate change. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
I thought you might be interested in helping with the new BLP article, Mototaka_Nakamura. Cheers. -- Yae4 ( talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Heh. If I ever wanted to convince myself to stay far, far away from these loons thoughtful fellow editors.... Good grief.
I did notice you arguing a point based on WP:BLP, and I started to do the same -- except I realized, he's no longer a Living Person! Which doesn't mean his shade can be defamed, of course.
Hope this finds you well & healthy. I suspect this is a futile effort, on both our parts, but who knows? Perhaps I'll look into kicking it up a level. To the oh-so-sympathetic CC-area admins.... Well, maybe not. Sigh. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "corroborated" has been misused. [18] Please let me know if you still object to me restoring that word and we can discuss it on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 13:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi You reversed a date update regarding Sean Hannity offer to be water boarded in 2011
Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't he as of this date 15/9/2020 not been water boarded for charity or any other reason Keith Olbermann would have donated $1,000 for every second of waterboarding Hannity underwent.
if he had he would have shouted it all over his show and the internet if for no other reason to embarrass Keith olberman it is imposable to source something that hasn't happened
the edit was just a date update and undoing it is draconian in the extreme
Dixon hill ( talk) 05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Dixon hill
... For pointing out that a topic ban doesn't apply to BLP vios. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Peter Gulutzan,
I have long been puzzled about a habit (?) of yours whose significance is unclear to me. So, with a bit of free time on my hands and a couple of your recent edits on my watchlist, I am writing out of idle curiosity, in the hope that you will explain it to me. I apologize in advance for the verbosity of my question.
As an example, consider this diff. The edit summary is the title of the section that you were commenting in. My understanding of how WP's editing software works is that this is automatically pre-filled when one clicks the "edit" button next to a section heading; for example, when I start editing the same section, my edit summary is pre-filled with the text "/* Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead */". If I were to submit an edit with that edit summary, I would get an edit summary like this, with the same text, but that the software automatically converts to a section link. I presume that the theory here is that another editor can more easily find the place where one made a change by following the section link to the associated section (and indeed, I personally find this very convenient in practice). It appears to me that you (manually?) remove the slashes and asterices from your edit summaries, leaving the same text but without this convenient functionality. Am I correct about that? And, if so, can you explain why you do it?
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 14:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I too have wondered about this. It is indeed inconvenient (IOW tends toward uncollegial) for other editors. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for reverting my collapse of the discussion! I was honestly not aware of the policy for involved parties but it makes sense since you pointed it out. I'll be aware of that going forward.
Best, Jonmaxras ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I highly doubt that my warning will be rescinded, but I appreciate the sentiment . Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 04:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
For some reason my edit summary did not save when I removed that comment on Talk:Gab (social network). It's inappropriate to reply to a closed discussion, and preferred that the person start a new section to discuss improving the article, so I removed that comment. I won't revert your revert, but it was not a good idea to replace that comment. Especially since the comment is mostly directed at another user, not actually toward changing the article itself. Not to mention the horribly loaded "Star of David" language. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw your comment. I would absolutely restore to the stable revision, but here is the difference between the stable version and the current version. The content is virtually identical, except for the fact that an unsourced piece of information is now sourced. Also, a piece of information about his family was removed, but that is separate from the relevant dispute, and based on the talk page discussion about that removal, it does not appear to be under contention, with the removing user saying they don't mind if anyone wants to restore it, and the other user saying they don't want to restore it at this time. So restoring to the stable version would not do anything to deescalate the dispute, it would simply keep the status quo while removing sources for no reason. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi There, for some background on a recent revert. I added a source to this article to try and back up the assertion he is a Climate Change denier (I did not add the claim itself), You've reverted the source but the article still states that he is an 'Outspoken Climate Change Denier'. Did you mean to also remove the claim that he is a denier? I see it's an ongoing issue on the article. JeffUK ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Peter,
Just saw you removed my edit from the article on Robert Mercer...
Here's the first line of the article in The Guardian
"The company, SCL Elections, went on to be bought by Robert Mercer"
I don't understand why his ownership was removed from the article as "uncredited from the source' as this is literally in the first paragraph.
In the book Mindf*ck by Christopher Wylie he describes Mercer's ownership of Cambridge Analytica as follows
For a principal investment of $15 million, Mercer took 90 per cent ownership of Cambridge Analytica, and SCL would take 10 per cent. Wylie, Christopher. Mindf*ck (p. 92). Profile. Kindle Edition.
I would like to add both. Thanks. Kranke133 ( talk) 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Peter,
Appreciate the judicious monitoring of the Post's page and helpful direction for how I should go about making edits to bias/political stance. Nice find on the iPolitics article as well. To respond to your concern that the iPolitics page ref "Survey suggests large number of Canadians have likely read 'fake' news stories". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2021./ref does not line up with my description of the Abacus surve ref "Canadian News Media And "Fake News" Under A Microscope". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2021.( registration required)/ref: I suspect you are getting at the numbers in the graphics on iPolitics aren't the same as my summary. You are correct, but that is because the iPolitics article only uses the results broken down by political party (i.e. Liberals and Conservatives). The overall results are the ones I am reporting. If you would like to verify, you can register for free at the Abacus site to view the original survey report.
If you have another concern about inconsistency, please clarify. I would happily discuss. Balancingakt ( talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Iiuc, both the current WP:RS#Deprecated wording there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something
and the
WP:RS/QUOTE dictum to cite the original source
argue for inclusion of Robinson’s view published in OG as a cite. Apologies if I misunderstand.
Humanengr (
talk) 06:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have objected to that close. I want to make sure you understand something I wrote there: "While Peter himself may not be consciously part of the effort, this still serves to aid a long-standing effort to gradually delete properly-sourced views from one side of the political spectrum, only leaving the views of Trump supporters and their denials of the Trump campaign's involvement in illicit contacts with Russians and downplaying of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."
I do not consider you to be part of that effort, even if your actions contribute toward it. I don't see you as a fringe editor (one who depends on unreliable sources and seeks to undermine content from RS), but they are certainly pleased with your efforts there. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I hate it when guys don't use the talk page at Pierre Poilievre. This Unfinite guy is becoming annoying-it's like he's misunderstanding the written text in the article and in the source that backs it up. Can you have a quick look at the article... maybe I'm wrong. A fresh set of eyes would be nice. Thanks! Masterhatch ( talk) 15:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am VickKiang. Thanks for your participation in the RfC for Sky News Australia, and apologies for the trouble it induced. I will make sure to follow NPOV in OP next time. VickKiang ( talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasoning on the reversion of my link on The Daily Mail due MOS:LWQ for me? I looked over the guideline and it appears to me that I didn't do any thing wrong, and the section edited was not even a quotation of a source. Please note I had not seen the guideline before editing and I am fairly new to editing on wikipedia regularly. Thanks! Flameperson ( talk) 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The above came shortly after an objection to my post on the talk page of an American politician's bio. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have previously received DS notifications and been warned, including above at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Discretionary_sanctions_for_climate_change by User:Bishonen, a topic ban warning you waved off.
You continue to whitewash climate change denialist terminology and remove sources, sometimes in violation of NPOV which demands that the views of opponents be included. You have also (many times) been involved in discussions about climate change "skeptics", which you refuse to accept as "deniers". That issue will hang over you until you decide to accept Wikipedia's (because we accept RS) way of interpreting that issue.
Stop objecting to the use of "denialist" language for so-called "skeptics", as they are not real scientific skeptics. They are propagandists who misuse words. As long as you refuse to accept that, a topic ban sword will hang over your head, ready to fall if you take a misstep, and you keep crossing that line. We shouldn't have to monitor you all the time. A topic ban would free us of that burden. Climate change "skeptics" are "deniers". Repeat that a thousand times. If you won't accept that, then voluntarily stay away from the topic as you are opposed to RS and Wikipedia's purpose on this matter. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You keep on making your science denial agenda very clear. Stop whitewashing climate change denialists. When we document their nonsense, we also must include how RS treat it, but you delete that. That is forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC issues at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News_Australia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Peter, Please explain why you removed the Globe and Mail’s political position. Multiple editors have provided sources and reasoning for the “Center-right” attribution. I may have missed but, there doesn’t appear to be a reason provided for your deletion. Cheers Luxphos ( talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Since 30 July 2022 RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science] has proceeded. I counted some !votes, maybe wrongly, maybe too early:
6 deprecate 14 deprecate or downgrade 10 downgrade or deprecate 44 downgrade 1 downgrade or status quo -- 75 5 status quo or downgrade 1 split 1 maybe revise wording 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote) 3 status quo or upgrade -- 11 48 status quo 9 upgrade or status quo 10 upgrade 1 not downgrade 1 bad RfC -- 69
I'm the only one who has !voted "Bad RfC". Maybe I'm also the only one who has noticed that there is no {{
rfc}}
tag, and no listing in
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Updated.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Updated.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. This is the final update because an administrator closed with a claim that there was a consensus.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's another way to parse those same numbers:
6 deprecate 22 deprecate or downgrade/downgrade or deprecate 39 downgrade -- 67 deprecate or downgrade 45 status quo -- 45 6 downgrade or status quo/status quo or downgrade 10 status quo or upgrade/upgrade or status quo -- 4 status quo or upgrade 10 upgrade -- 10 Others that can't be counted 1 split 1 maybe revise wording 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote) -- 3 1 not downgrade 1 bad RfC
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Peter! I am fresh out from climate change ban prison, and spent the ~962 days avoiding "climate change broadly construed". FYI, I had to nod my head, but explicitly refused to swear allegiance to "the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources". Anyway, do you have any information that could help give me the wisdom to accept it would be a complete waste of my time to get involved again? Nevermind, commented out some thoughts. After skimming your talk page, it is evident enough. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Chefs-kiss ( talk) 18:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Peter Gulutzan, I noticed you removed my edit regrading the National Post political alignment. The source I quoted has been used for the Toronto Sun Wiki page political alignment line. I don’t want to undo your change without understanding your reasoning for the deletion. Please advise as to your objection to the political alignment. Cheers. Lucis-Phos ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
In the interest in not rubbing things in Korny's face, I'll respond here. I'm not going to pull individual diffs because it's a huge waste of time, but a quick glance through the discussion shows: Support both GENSEX and all politics
Dronebogus, Support TBAN from GENSEX and AP2
LilianaUwU, Support GENSEX and AP tban
FormalDude, Support tban from LoTT, GENSEX and American politics generally
Ravenswing, Support broad tban from GENSEX and AP.
TimothyBlue, Support broad TBAN from GENSEX and AP
Wes sideman, Support. Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well
ValarianB, Support — Permanent ban from LoTT & temp. ban for GENSEX and American Politics
IP, Support Longterm (6 months minimum) tempban from LoTT and tempban from american politics
Googleguy007, Support a ban from both GENSEX and American politics
Aquillion, per Aquillion
Andrevan, I'd also support a tban from GENSEX and AP
sche, Support a ban from GENSEX and American politics
XOR'easter.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Please respond here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I had more-or-less avoided Wikipedia for the last few months, so I didn't see this until just now. Thank you for trying to undo my topic ban, which I agree was handled in a very bizarre way, where most of the diffs used to show that I was a bad editor are still reflected in their respective articles (at least, last time I checked) - meaning that they couldn't have been that bad! - and where a minority of people voting to ban me from writing about American politics was judged to be a "clear consensus". And your "close challenge" seems to have also been handled bizarrely: simply archived, with no resolution. Anyway, thanks for your support. Perhaps you've moved on by now and no longer care, but if you still feel any involvement in helping with my case, let me know if I can help in any way. I'm not sure whether I ever want to edit Wikipedia again, but I would still like to see the American Politics ban overturned, no matter what. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I won't be responding to pings for a while. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Masterhatch (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I see you haven't made any edits lately so I'm not sure if you are still around. In case you are around, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch ( talk) 08:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempts to improve these articles. As you are finding out, making positive changes -- generally, getting the articles closer to WP:NPOV -- is time-consuming and can be very frustrating. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Good grief. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment about the revisions to DataStax while I was out of the country on vacation, then I promptly forgot about it. Sorry for the unintended neglect. I hope all has been resolved - if not, let me know and I will jump in. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v252/n5480/abs/252216a0.html William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Yes, I am aware. I suggest you read the scathing AGC review, which incidentally does not reflect on Raitt at all, since she was not Minister of transport at the time, to see how you would characterise it. The "partisan" adjective serves well where it is. How else do you characterise a self-serving review? It cannot be characterised as independent, since the board paid for it. Wiki'll evaluate your fixes if you choose to make any. 66.225.160.9 ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that he's been banned, feel free to revert any of his that you find unhelpful.
He won't be missed. His protestations of innocence at his Talk page are entertaining. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain yourself on reverting my Marc Morano comment in the talk section. I only cited a source that is much more reputable than the other sources. It is a record of the US Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I will conceded this revert but urge you to not revert the recent change. I agree that the one you reverted was not a great addition, but the new change is much more informative and removed a poor personal opinion from an author that was not supported by the reference.
I am only using your talk to discuss this article since you have failed to comment on the article talk page and feel free to remove this if you agree with the most recent changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been deleting a raft of citations, pointing at the BLP noticeboard: "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli" section. I have not found this section or any discussion on the topic in a search of the archives. Can you point me to it? M.boli ( talk) 12:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my edit, I erroneously thought the topic ban ended this month. I have notified the administrator who issued the ban in the first place at User talk:Sandstein. -- Kaj Taj Mahal ( talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I manually moved the survey image you posted to Wikipedia (English) to the Commons, where I simply turned it into an updated version of the original. This is consistent with WP:TOCOMMONS. Since we are the only eds who have commented so far, please consider just deleting this talk thread, as it would be confusing and useless to transfer it as well. TPG lets us delete talk threads if all agree to do so, and I do if you do. More, I think doing so is best. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on.
Once we settle on captions, could you please also correct the Bray and von Storch results, per this? Assuming no one comments by then. TIA, Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
not sure if you've been pinged but here is my reply [1]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Arianewiki1 ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Peter - regarding this, the reason I collapsed that section of the discussion was because it was almost entirely about Tetra's edits use of AWB, not answering the original question of capitalization standards. Since the DRN discussion ended with TQ losing access to AWB, and the goal now is to get that clear consensus, I collapsed that area to tidy up and focus on the discussion regarding capitalization, and the consideration of extending the discussion to MOS (particularly if anyone new wants to chime in). If you don't think it was appropriate, I won't challenge that - maybe it'd be worth separating what I collapsed into it's own sub-header? I'll leave that for you to consider. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You undid an edit I made, in which I had replaced 11 words with 1, and you left the edit summary Doesn't look verbose. I can only conclude that you don't know what "verbose" means. It means "using more words than necessary". So, if you can express something in 1 word, then expressing it in 11 words is verbose. Kindly don't revert the hard work of other editors if you don't understand the reason for the edit. 200.83.136.145 ( talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I certainly don't mean to be exercising ownership over Universe; apologies if it came across that way. I reverted to "Universe" simply because that's how this page has been for a long time (I checked 500 edits back as a random sample — I wasn't an active editor of that article at the time, in 2013 — and it primarily used "Universe" back then), which I consider an example of the existing consensus on this particular article. A single editor changing two of the dozens of uses of the word in that article from a proper name to a common noun strikes me as a bad idea. Wikipedia policy is to maintain consistency unless there's a consensus to change an article, I thought. It is certainly true that I prefer to treat the word "universe" as a proper name when used as the name of the Universe, but I would revert changes to be consistent if the existing version always used it as a common noun in the absence of a consensus to make the change. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know it was possible to revert a registered user's edit w/o their being notified of said revert. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you just stated that you didn't do it so that I wouldn't be notified because otherwise I'd be really irritated; to me, unless you're an unregistered user, such an act is one of disrespect and cowardice. But your reason seems to me to be that you thought it was so minor you didn't want to bother me with it, is that it? If so, then I understand and am not irritated for the reason so stated. Although, I still think "universe" should not be capitalised except perhaps in the first sentence (hence why I left that one alone); this is because in this case it acts as an opening, and the capitalisation somewhat serves as a declaration of it being the topic and such a big one (both literally and figuratively). Not sure if I made any sense whatsoever just now, but hey it made sense in my head. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, @ ASHill:, but that last sentence seemed rather rude... σ~σ — SarahTehCat
(I have deleted this conversation from my talk page. Let it be clear that I received a discretionary sanctions notice for ARBCC on March 18, in correct form and politely worded. My reply was influenced by the outcome from a mistaken accusation that I'd received a few days earlier from a different editor, and I thought that there was an intent to accuse me of something on WP:AE. I know more about DS notices now, and apologize for not knowing before.) Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Peter, At Talk:anthony watts, please don't ping-template me with every post. That's what watchlists are for. While I appreciate the effort of making it easy for me, in fact it's giving me an extra thing to do - turning off the little red flag in my user panel. I'll see what you say without that, at least at that location.
thanks NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In
this edit, you copied in a lot of text, some of which was apparently mangled in the formatting during transport. I am guessing that most of it was an error and that you only intended to post that first paragraph. I'm going to take the liberty of removing all the rest. Please fix it if I removed too much. Never mind. You already saw it and fixed it yourself. Let me know if there's something I can help with. Thanks.
Rossami
(talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Rossami: It's great to see that editors like you would catch this sort of horror. Apologies and thanks. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh? Bring your accusation to any administrator-watched forum/noticeboard and we'll see who gets in trouble. You'll see I am a regular at these boards: JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Guy ( Help!) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I moved the existing discussion at AE to WP:AE#Peter Gulutzan. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I've commented on your recent reversions at Talk:Christopher C. Horner#Removal of well-cited material. Please don't remove well-cited material. Fuzzypeg ★ 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the original October discussion. — TPX 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
The editor Joel Lewis has deleted a lot of stuff [ [3]] from the William Happer article on the basis of lack of secondary sources. While I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, do you consider that according to Wiki rules material from primary sources should be deleted?
Thanks,
JS ( talk) 00:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that @ NotSeenHere: seems to be engaging in disruptive behaviour in the Maxime Bernier article. This user's talk page is full of people asking him/her to stop it. Specifically, this user seems to be trying to interpret articles in POV ways, rather than simply using exactly what they said. Please provide assistance. Bell1985 ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I was on User talk:Tomwsulcer and I noticed your comment under the heading Joe Barton. I have no opinion on the merits. I just wanted to suggest that rather than using external links like [4], you can use your edit of 16:23, 21 May 2017, which has a cleaner look and allows you to name the link. Respectfully, — Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Pinging you because you were the last to comment at Talk:Scott Pruitt before me. Do you have an opinion on Talk:Scott Pruitt#BRD on edits by user Marquardtika, and/or do you think the content in question is a good candidate for an RFC? The talk page discussion doesn't seem to be getting many eyes so I'm wondering what a good next step would be. Marquardtika ( talk) 19:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
-- for your kind words following my topic ban of, gosh, almost 2 years ago [5]. Time flies. I guess I should summon the energy to apply for removal of the thing. I can't recall anyone else in the Wiki Climate Wars who drew an indefinite ban..... Quite a slap in the face. Tant pis.
Truth to tell, I'm much less active here than before the late unpleasantness, and doubt that I'll ever be very active in the CC area again. As I'm sure you've noticed, the CAGW hypothesis is pretty much collapsing under its own weight. IMO, of course. Science does self-correct, eventually.
Hope all is well with you. I'm noticeably older, and slower, but we're both in (reasonably) good health. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Please help police this nonsense. 199.7.156.136 ( talk) 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I received criticisms about this edit on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page from two editors. One of them was a properly-formed warning. One of them included what looks like a discretionary sanctions alert regarding American politics, but it isn't in the edit filter log and I don't know that it's valid. To prevent people from being sure I received such an alert, I removed the criticisms and my replies. Click here to see them. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nardog ( talk) 04:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. [6] But shouldn't the behavioural issue be taken up on the user's talk page in the first instance?
I have not pinged them here as they've asked me not to post to their talk page [7] and so I'm guessing a ping would not be welcome either, but I'm of two minds and your advice on that would be welcome. Andrewa ( talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst ( talk) 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC) |
Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Since at least November 2018, you have repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric by making ludicrous assertions that there is a BLP violation in covering falsehoods and lies by prominent climate change deniers:
You have been a participant in discussions [13] where consensus was reached on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list [14] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." Back in November 2018, [15] it can be seen as an inadvertent error on your part to claim Climate Feedback was not a RS. However, when you continue doing so in October 2019 [16] and January 2020 [17], as well as remove other well-sourced text, it amounts to tendentious editing and raises serious questions of your ability to edit on topics related to climate change. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC).
I thought you might be interested in helping with the new BLP article, Mototaka_Nakamura. Cheers. -- Yae4 ( talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Heh. If I ever wanted to convince myself to stay far, far away from these loons thoughtful fellow editors.... Good grief.
I did notice you arguing a point based on WP:BLP, and I started to do the same -- except I realized, he's no longer a Living Person! Which doesn't mean his shade can be defamed, of course.
Hope this finds you well & healthy. I suspect this is a futile effort, on both our parts, but who knows? Perhaps I'll look into kicking it up a level. To the oh-so-sympathetic CC-area admins.... Well, maybe not. Sigh. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "corroborated" has been misused. [18] Please let me know if you still object to me restoring that word and we can discuss it on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 13:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi You reversed a date update regarding Sean Hannity offer to be water boarded in 2011
Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't he as of this date 15/9/2020 not been water boarded for charity or any other reason Keith Olbermann would have donated $1,000 for every second of waterboarding Hannity underwent.
if he had he would have shouted it all over his show and the internet if for no other reason to embarrass Keith olberman it is imposable to source something that hasn't happened
the edit was just a date update and undoing it is draconian in the extreme
Dixon hill ( talk) 05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Dixon hill
... For pointing out that a topic ban doesn't apply to BLP vios. Best, Pete Tillman ( talk) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Peter Gulutzan,
I have long been puzzled about a habit (?) of yours whose significance is unclear to me. So, with a bit of free time on my hands and a couple of your recent edits on my watchlist, I am writing out of idle curiosity, in the hope that you will explain it to me. I apologize in advance for the verbosity of my question.
As an example, consider this diff. The edit summary is the title of the section that you were commenting in. My understanding of how WP's editing software works is that this is automatically pre-filled when one clicks the "edit" button next to a section heading; for example, when I start editing the same section, my edit summary is pre-filled with the text "/* Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead */". If I were to submit an edit with that edit summary, I would get an edit summary like this, with the same text, but that the software automatically converts to a section link. I presume that the theory here is that another editor can more easily find the place where one made a change by following the section link to the associated section (and indeed, I personally find this very convenient in practice). It appears to me that you (manually?) remove the slashes and asterices from your edit summaries, leaving the same text but without this convenient functionality. Am I correct about that? And, if so, can you explain why you do it?
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 14:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I too have wondered about this. It is indeed inconvenient (IOW tends toward uncollegial) for other editors. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for reverting my collapse of the discussion! I was honestly not aware of the policy for involved parties but it makes sense since you pointed it out. I'll be aware of that going forward.
Best, Jonmaxras ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I highly doubt that my warning will be rescinded, but I appreciate the sentiment . Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 04:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
For some reason my edit summary did not save when I removed that comment on Talk:Gab (social network). It's inappropriate to reply to a closed discussion, and preferred that the person start a new section to discuss improving the article, so I removed that comment. I won't revert your revert, but it was not a good idea to replace that comment. Especially since the comment is mostly directed at another user, not actually toward changing the article itself. Not to mention the horribly loaded "Star of David" language. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw your comment. I would absolutely restore to the stable revision, but here is the difference between the stable version and the current version. The content is virtually identical, except for the fact that an unsourced piece of information is now sourced. Also, a piece of information about his family was removed, but that is separate from the relevant dispute, and based on the talk page discussion about that removal, it does not appear to be under contention, with the removing user saying they don't mind if anyone wants to restore it, and the other user saying they don't want to restore it at this time. So restoring to the stable version would not do anything to deescalate the dispute, it would simply keep the status quo while removing sources for no reason. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi There, for some background on a recent revert. I added a source to this article to try and back up the assertion he is a Climate Change denier (I did not add the claim itself), You've reverted the source but the article still states that he is an 'Outspoken Climate Change Denier'. Did you mean to also remove the claim that he is a denier? I see it's an ongoing issue on the article. JeffUK ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Peter,
Just saw you removed my edit from the article on Robert Mercer...
Here's the first line of the article in The Guardian
"The company, SCL Elections, went on to be bought by Robert Mercer"
I don't understand why his ownership was removed from the article as "uncredited from the source' as this is literally in the first paragraph.
In the book Mindf*ck by Christopher Wylie he describes Mercer's ownership of Cambridge Analytica as follows
For a principal investment of $15 million, Mercer took 90 per cent ownership of Cambridge Analytica, and SCL would take 10 per cent. Wylie, Christopher. Mindf*ck (p. 92). Profile. Kindle Edition.
I would like to add both. Thanks. Kranke133 ( talk) 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Peter,
Appreciate the judicious monitoring of the Post's page and helpful direction for how I should go about making edits to bias/political stance. Nice find on the iPolitics article as well. To respond to your concern that the iPolitics page ref "Survey suggests large number of Canadians have likely read 'fake' news stories". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2021./ref does not line up with my description of the Abacus surve ref "Canadian News Media And "Fake News" Under A Microscope". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2021.( registration required)/ref: I suspect you are getting at the numbers in the graphics on iPolitics aren't the same as my summary. You are correct, but that is because the iPolitics article only uses the results broken down by political party (i.e. Liberals and Conservatives). The overall results are the ones I am reporting. If you would like to verify, you can register for free at the Abacus site to view the original survey report.
If you have another concern about inconsistency, please clarify. I would happily discuss. Balancingakt ( talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Iiuc, both the current WP:RS#Deprecated wording there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something
and the
WP:RS/QUOTE dictum to cite the original source
argue for inclusion of Robinson’s view published in OG as a cite. Apologies if I misunderstand.
Humanengr (
talk) 06:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have objected to that close. I want to make sure you understand something I wrote there: "While Peter himself may not be consciously part of the effort, this still serves to aid a long-standing effort to gradually delete properly-sourced views from one side of the political spectrum, only leaving the views of Trump supporters and their denials of the Trump campaign's involvement in illicit contacts with Russians and downplaying of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."
I do not consider you to be part of that effort, even if your actions contribute toward it. I don't see you as a fringe editor (one who depends on unreliable sources and seeks to undermine content from RS), but they are certainly pleased with your efforts there. -- Valjean ( talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I hate it when guys don't use the talk page at Pierre Poilievre. This Unfinite guy is becoming annoying-it's like he's misunderstanding the written text in the article and in the source that backs it up. Can you have a quick look at the article... maybe I'm wrong. A fresh set of eyes would be nice. Thanks! Masterhatch ( talk) 15:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am VickKiang. Thanks for your participation in the RfC for Sky News Australia, and apologies for the trouble it induced. I will make sure to follow NPOV in OP next time. VickKiang ( talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain your reasoning on the reversion of my link on The Daily Mail due MOS:LWQ for me? I looked over the guideline and it appears to me that I didn't do any thing wrong, and the section edited was not even a quotation of a source. Please note I had not seen the guideline before editing and I am fairly new to editing on wikipedia regularly. Thanks! Flameperson ( talk) 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The above came shortly after an objection to my post on the talk page of an American politician's bio. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have previously received DS notifications and been warned, including above at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Discretionary_sanctions_for_climate_change by User:Bishonen, a topic ban warning you waved off.
You continue to whitewash climate change denialist terminology and remove sources, sometimes in violation of NPOV which demands that the views of opponents be included. You have also (many times) been involved in discussions about climate change "skeptics", which you refuse to accept as "deniers". That issue will hang over you until you decide to accept Wikipedia's (because we accept RS) way of interpreting that issue.
Stop objecting to the use of "denialist" language for so-called "skeptics", as they are not real scientific skeptics. They are propagandists who misuse words. As long as you refuse to accept that, a topic ban sword will hang over your head, ready to fall if you take a misstep, and you keep crossing that line. We shouldn't have to monitor you all the time. A topic ban would free us of that burden. Climate change "skeptics" are "deniers". Repeat that a thousand times. If you won't accept that, then voluntarily stay away from the topic as you are opposed to RS and Wikipedia's purpose on this matter. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You keep on making your science denial agenda very clear. Stop whitewashing climate change denialists. When we document their nonsense, we also must include how RS treat it, but you delete that. That is forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC issues at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News_Australia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Peter, Please explain why you removed the Globe and Mail’s political position. Multiple editors have provided sources and reasoning for the “Center-right” attribution. I may have missed but, there doesn’t appear to be a reason provided for your deletion. Cheers Luxphos ( talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Since 30 July 2022 RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science] has proceeded. I counted some !votes, maybe wrongly, maybe too early:
6 deprecate 14 deprecate or downgrade 10 downgrade or deprecate 44 downgrade 1 downgrade or status quo -- 75 5 status quo or downgrade 1 split 1 maybe revise wording 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote) 3 status quo or upgrade -- 11 48 status quo 9 upgrade or status quo 10 upgrade 1 not downgrade 1 bad RfC -- 69
I'm the only one who has !voted "Bad RfC". Maybe I'm also the only one who has noticed that there is no {{
rfc}}
tag, and no listing in
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Updated.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Updated.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. This is the final update because an administrator closed with a claim that there was a consensus.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's another way to parse those same numbers:
6 deprecate 22 deprecate or downgrade/downgrade or deprecate 39 downgrade -- 67 deprecate or downgrade 45 status quo -- 45 6 downgrade or status quo/status quo or downgrade 10 status quo or upgrade/upgrade or status quo -- 4 status quo or upgrade 10 upgrade -- 10 Others that can't be counted 1 split 1 maybe revise wording 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote) -- 3 1 not downgrade 1 bad RfC
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Peter! I am fresh out from climate change ban prison, and spent the ~962 days avoiding "climate change broadly construed". FYI, I had to nod my head, but explicitly refused to swear allegiance to "the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources". Anyway, do you have any information that could help give me the wisdom to accept it would be a complete waste of my time to get involved again? Nevermind, commented out some thoughts. After skimming your talk page, it is evident enough. -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Chefs-kiss ( talk) 18:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Peter Gulutzan, I noticed you removed my edit regrading the National Post political alignment. The source I quoted has been used for the Toronto Sun Wiki page political alignment line. I don’t want to undo your change without understanding your reasoning for the deletion. Please advise as to your objection to the political alignment. Cheers. Lucis-Phos ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
In the interest in not rubbing things in Korny's face, I'll respond here. I'm not going to pull individual diffs because it's a huge waste of time, but a quick glance through the discussion shows: Support both GENSEX and all politics
Dronebogus, Support TBAN from GENSEX and AP2
LilianaUwU, Support GENSEX and AP tban
FormalDude, Support tban from LoTT, GENSEX and American politics generally
Ravenswing, Support broad tban from GENSEX and AP.
TimothyBlue, Support broad TBAN from GENSEX and AP
Wes sideman, Support. Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well
ValarianB, Support — Permanent ban from LoTT & temp. ban for GENSEX and American Politics
IP, Support Longterm (6 months minimum) tempban from LoTT and tempban from american politics
Googleguy007, Support a ban from both GENSEX and American politics
Aquillion, per Aquillion
Andrevan, I'd also support a tban from GENSEX and AP
sche, Support a ban from GENSEX and American politics
XOR'easter.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Please respond here. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I had more-or-less avoided Wikipedia for the last few months, so I didn't see this until just now. Thank you for trying to undo my topic ban, which I agree was handled in a very bizarre way, where most of the diffs used to show that I was a bad editor are still reflected in their respective articles (at least, last time I checked) - meaning that they couldn't have been that bad! - and where a minority of people voting to ban me from writing about American politics was judged to be a "clear consensus". And your "close challenge" seems to have also been handled bizarrely: simply archived, with no resolution. Anyway, thanks for your support. Perhaps you've moved on by now and no longer care, but if you still feel any involvement in helping with my case, let me know if I can help in any way. I'm not sure whether I ever want to edit Wikipedia again, but I would still like to see the American Politics ban overturned, no matter what. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I won't be responding to pings for a while. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Masterhatch (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I see you haven't made any edits lately so I'm not sure if you are still around. In case you are around, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch ( talk) 08:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)