Misplaced Pages

User talk:Springee: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:33, 4 October 2015 editPeter Gulutzan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,200 edits Your edit on the Monckton talk page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:02, 25 December 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →The Signpost: 24 December 2024: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ds/aware|ap|gc|cc|blp|covid}}
==Comment by Anmccaff==
I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself.] (]) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:I've made enough changes that I'd appreciate an extra set of eyeballs taking a look at 'em, if your time allows.] (]) 10:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


{{archive box|
==Engagement with Streetcar conspiracy article==
*]
Thank you for your input re ] article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:
*]
*It is much easier to make many small changes than one big one.
*]
*It allows you to test your ideas, while getting feedback and building trust with other contributors.
*]
*It is much more likely to be successful - do remember that major changes can be made with small steps.
*]
*and... very importantly, it will avoid you getting sucked into conflicts that Anmccaff, who has now reappeared, and who has created discord independently on two separate WP articles recently with different people (see ]: and ]).
*]
*]
}}


]
I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!
]
]
]


-- ] (]) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


==Spring==
Are you looking for the old content of a redirect . You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. --] (]) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


== Republican Party article ==
{{reply to|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}
Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live?] (]) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article ] (]) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


{{U|Springee}} I'm confused and surprised at your position on this issue. Should we exclude mentions of ] from certain parts of the ] article as well? ] (]) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. ] (]) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC) :My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. ] (]) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::] I'm asking you politely, to bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? ] (]) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. ] (]) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. ] (]) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::: You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. ] (]) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic” is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. ] (]) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. ] (]) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks {{u|Darknipples|DN}}. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. ] (]) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 10 January 2024 ==
==Articles under discretionary sanctions==
Please note that ] applies to ] and ], both ] and ]. I strongly recommend you review the ArbCom findings. --] (]) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, you are correct. I will try to be more careful about the tone of my replies. ] (]) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks! --] (]) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-01-10}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
==Your recent edits==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1195004934 -->
] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
# Add four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.


== SamuelRiv and right-wing populism ==
Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
==Addressing NPOV problems with MJ article==
I admire your patience at ] and ]. I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.


:I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?


== ''The Signpost'': 31 January 2024 ==
I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-01-31}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 2--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1200068615 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 13 February 2024 ==
I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-02-13}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 3--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? --] (]) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1206291309 -->


== You know better than to deny good faith ==
:{{u|Ronz}}, not at all! Actually I welcome the discussion. I'm rather frustrated that it appears that some editors see this as, "you don't like the article thus you want to whitewash _____". Or at least that is how it feels. I am happy to discuss the topic and would like to come up with a constructive way to address it (that can include adding the complaints that MJ lists). I think that generically stating that MJ said something negative about the organizations isn't meaningful. If we work together on the meaningful part of the content then I think we get a better article overall. I think we will have to customize each entry of course. Would you make the first suggestions? ] (]) 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. I do like to discuss policies first, but most people prefer to focus on specifics (sources, proposed content, etc). Can I assume from what you've written so far that you'd rather go straight to the specifics? --] (]) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually I really don't mind discussing policies. I think it can be quite helpful. In part because there are a lot and I certainly don't have all of them committed to memory. Sometimes when you read an entry it just feels wrong but you can't always find the correct policy if you don't know all the ropes. In this case I think the MJ entry is being used to demonize rather than inform. As this is an encyclopedic article I think we should lean heavily way from editorial opinion even when that opinion comes from sources that provide reliable content. What is much harder if figuring out the correct way to cast that in Wiki guidelines. It's even harder when the first assumption of others is that you are trying to suppress information vs trying to make the article more fact based ] (]) 01:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


As you did at ] ] ] 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks. So concerning the significance of the topics brought up in the MJ article: How do we resolve this? As I've been saying, a combination of improving the sourcing (or perhaps just demonstrating the strength of the sourcing, which is what editors have been focusing on doing), and ensuring that the most important points from the source(s) are being emphasized (which editors have also been doing to various degrees). Do you think these two approaches in combination are a general solution to NPOV/UNDUE problems and that their application would resolve this specific dispute? --] (]) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


:I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Misplaced Pages says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. ] (]) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::That is a good question. Part of what myself and several other editors felt was problematic was citing the MJ opinion/statement as something that should be noted within the consideration of WP:UNDUE. Here we have an article that is about an organization that is likely involved in many things, one being information about climate change. Criticism of their climate change positions would be reasonable. The more I read the MJ article the less I like it. The language is that of someone who is trying to demonize rather than inform. I don't think that makes for a good encyclopedic source. A Google search for the article name turns up one reference in a university press book (that's good) but I can't find how it is actually discussed in the text (that's bad). Other than pages on the MJ site the rest seems to be blogs and forums. Given that this list was published in 2009 I would say that basically no one else has picked it up as significant. The opening sentence of the page on the Heartland Inst starts with, "The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers." They did mention some information but it was very vague. "Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. " I'm not sure how we could go about checking that fact or many of the others in that section. Given the difficulty in verifying the claims MJ is making and the obviously disdainful view of the reporter towards his subject I think we should look for other sources. I think it would be best to avoid a rating system. Even stating that they are "one of the worst" is still subjective. Interestingly the MJ article doesn't give any actual examples of thing THI has advocated that MJ things are factually incorrect. Given that the MJ article says they are spreading disinformation I would hope they could provide an example.
::Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. ] ] 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::However, articles such as this one by CNN ] came up when I searched for "the heartland institute climate change". I think the tone of the CNN article is more to the point. It seems quite reasonable to report that THI has advocated for ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers on the topic of climate change. I'm sure we can find other similar articles. These avoid reporting an opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice but do offer the source information that MJ used to create their own opinions on the subject. Would such an entry work for you? Can we focus on examples where they were proven wrong?
::Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::BTW, how do you feel about the other references that are in the same paragraph as the MJ entry (well where the MJ article was placed)? The NYT's view seems like someone has taken a statement made in passing as part of a bigger article and presented it as if it were the focal point of the article. It feels like it's overselling the NYT's actual statement. Clearly "The Economist" reference is sound and gets the point across. I think ones like that should stay ] (]) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. ] (]) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::I've not looked closely at the article and its references.
::::You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at ] because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::You're not answering my general question about the approach, so let's try specifics:
:::::I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. ] (]) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think demonstrates significance of the list, "Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group." Do you agree that this shows MJs list is significant? --] (]) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Emotive language? Problem? '']''<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I think that does add to the significance of the list. I think I was trying to do the same thing but the search term I used above didn't return much. Note that I was searching for THI, not FWs. That said, the Atlantic article does not indulge in the name calling that was part of the MJ article. I think, given that we are writing in an encyclopedic voice we should not use the dirty dozen label but take The Atlantic's lead in how the list is referenced. Do you have other reference examples? What about a reference like " was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." That removes the value laden label. That said, given the language of the MJ article I think it's hard to take it seriously as a factual source. Bias is one thing, vitriol and seething with contempt should always give us pause with regard to using it as a reliable source vs an opinion, especially when MJ is just saying the same thing we can get from other sources... including in this case, THI's own web site. ] (]) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. ] (]) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. ] (]) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.
::::::::::In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. '']''<sup>]</sup> 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 2 March 2024 ==
::::::::Just a follow up on my thoughts above, I think the "dirty dozen" or even similar label would be a violation of ]. It tells us that we should avoid using value laden labels. Yes, in this case we would be quoting MJ but we can just as easily say that MJ singled this organization out without using their label. In this case even if we agree the list is notable, the label does not appear to be. Quoting the label is a way for an editor to claim they aren't applying the label while still applying the label. In this case it infers a value judgment without conveying facts. I think/hope we are in agreement there. ] (]) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::The Atlantic article is the best reference I've found.
:::::::::Yes, MJs presentation is over the top, plus the THI article already includes a great deal about climate change denial.
:::::::::" was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." Seems very hard to argue against. I think we're ready to summarize at the article talk page. What do you think? --] (]) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I think so. Do you think this statement would work for the other pages that reference the same article (assuming no obvious reasons to deviate)? Would you like to propose it or should I? Also, thank you for taking the initiative on this discussion. ] (]) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Go ahead and take it to THI. Hopefuly, it will be easier with additional articles, but we'll have to look at the relevant content in each. THI is easy because there's already so much on the topic. FreedomWorks seems to be the other extreme. I've barely glanced at the other articles. --] (]) 01:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
<br />
And it was promptly removed...
Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article? ] (]) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-02}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 4--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
== Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics ==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1211131470 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 ==
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
'''Please carefully read this information:'''
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 25 April 2024 ==
The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-04-25}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1220541483 -->
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 21:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
{{u|Slakr}} I understand. Is there any thread in particular where you think I'm getting close to being problematic? My intent is to stay within all guidelines at all time. Thanks ] (]) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
:Nothing in particular; more just a heads up. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 23:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


<section begin="announcement-content" />
::{{u|Slakr}} I saw you declined my edit war AN. Do you think my complaint was without merit or simply wasn't strong enough? I have found the edit in question's general behavior to be very confrontational and disruptive. This could be seen in his previous record. I guess my issue is it feels like he is being very disruptive and his edits have a clear bias. However, I'm not an expert on Wiki guidelines in general and I'm not sure if my complaint was better brought in the ANEW vs just as an ANI. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have. If this is something you don't want to discuss please tell me so and I will drop the topic. Thanks ] (]) 23:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
:''] ''
:::Sorry, I saw the decline but read it on my phone and didn't see the reasons. I think your decline statement covers much of the issue here. I will consider bringing it up as an ANI since it appears the primary issue was wrong forum. If you disagree please let me know. I don't like the idea of posting an ANI if people will see it as frivolous. Thanks, ] (]) 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Dear Wikimedian,
== Greetings ==


You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
You are very interested in collaborating with me. It might help if we could get to know each other better. It might help build rapport if I could develop an appreciation of your finest contributions to our project. May I respectfully ask, do you have any good articles I could read? Are there any articles on Misplaced Pages of which you are the primary contributor, or failing that, a major contributor? May I ask, what is your article space percentage? Thanks in advance for your reply. ] (]) 22:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
== Your edit on the Monckton talk page ==


The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ].
Hello,


Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors.
1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy,
see .
2. Your edit
moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".


On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.


] (]) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC) ] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 16 May 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-05-16}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 7--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1223040870 -->

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== The RfC ==

If you're going to go through and add notes ] to Green sources about 'activist' then I'm sure you wouldn't object to others doing likewise to any source that uses the term 'journalist'? I don't think it's very productive to be quibbling over sources which have been found on the whole to be generally reliable. Do you agree? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

:I think this is a discussion for the article talk page. ] (]) 12:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 8 June 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-06-08}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 8--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1227557527 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 4 July 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-07-04}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 9--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1232170247 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 22 July 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-07-22}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 10--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1235814680 -->

== Nike ==

Offtopic, so I am posting here, but have you looked at ]? ] (]) 11:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:I recall there being an essay on this. It isn't wp:OTHER but it might have been similar. Basically the idea is that because Misplaced Pages doesn't have a central editor we shouldn't presume that any particular article should be seen as the standard for how another article should be presented. What this could indicate is that both articles need fixing. ] (]) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... ] (]) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not familiar with the Nike article in general but I would presume the offshore labor issues would be the primary controversy. ] (]) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 14 August 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-08-14}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 11--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1240033127 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 4 September 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-04}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 12--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1243735654 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 26 September 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-26}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 13--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 20:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1247736176 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 19 October 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-10-19}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 14--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1252022219 -->

== Am I crazy?! ==

Hello Springee,
I feel comfortable sharing my thoughts about the GSL discussions with you, as you are much more experienced here and can likely help me put things into context. Please refer to my last comment regarding this ].

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable not to adopt a new title for the GSL page or to maintain the current status quo? I understand that I am just one editor, and that no article or article title needs to meet my individual standards, but I genuinely struggle to see why my comments or points aren’t blatantly obvious to everyone else. What am I missing here? ] (]) 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry {{u|Fenharrow}}, I've been offline for a few days. I think your POV is quite reasonable. An issue with Misplaced Pages, and something we just need to work around, is that numbers are often more important that what we feel is the best argument. That isn't to say that quality of argument means nothing but absent some sort of agreed mediator we often are stuck with numbers on the talk page. I've seen cases where the small talk page consensus (say 3 vs 1) becomes a clear consensus in favor of the "1" after a RfC. Other times we are stuck trying to realize where the limits are (it seems getting consensus to move this article isn't happening right now). So the options are trying to make a case at a notice board where more uninvolved editors can weigh in, or work within the current article structure to try to fix things as much as possible. It can be frustrating and if you need to, take a break or just post agreements with the editors with whom you do agree. Remember that the other side might be feeling the same way and we should try to keep all the replies about the issues at hand. BTW, I do think it's reasonable to say how a new bit of text might be viewed by a reader. "A reader is likely to view that as biased because..." For what it's worth, a lot of changes have been made to the article of late but I'm not sure I've seen a true consensus for many of them, especially the removal of "political term" from the opening of the lead. ] (]) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ah! It's great to hear from you, Springee! Ideally, I would start an RM seeking "Private Sale Exemption" (PSE), but has that ship sailed already? Interestingly, some editors who opposed the previous RMs seem to agree that PSE and GSL are "largely synonymous". Allowing the article to remain as GSL feels like a disservice to anyone on Misplaced Pages seeking to learn about the subject. I would like to challenge the page title. When do you think would be a suitable time to do that? Alternatively, merging GSL with "Gun Shows in the United States" also seems to work. Please share your thoughts! ] (]) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 6 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-06}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 15--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1255531917 -->

== Template: Conservatism in the US on Southern strategy ==

I'm responding to your here, because by misrepresenting my position (unintentionally or not), and then pointing to "my efforts", it seems to have become more personal in nature.

{{tq|"I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You said "we are talking about a simple template". If that is all this is why put so much effort to justify inclusion?}}

:Framing as "putting so much effort to justify" puts the focus on me, not on the discussion or the arguments at hand. Conversely, it also conveniently ignores the "effort" you've also put in thus far.

:I am required to assume good faith, but I'm concerned with the timing in which you decided to from the history section on the ] at ].

:With all due respect the timing of your edit on the template, in combination with the recent turn in the discussion raises serious concerns that I am under no obligation to deal with.

:As a result, I will no longer be participating in that discussion, and I will let {{U|Biohistorian15}} decide if they wish to continue.

Best of luck to you both.

Cheers. ] (]) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 18 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-18}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 16--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1258243105 -->

== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 -->

== '']'' arbitration case opened ==

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 -->

== ] updates ==

You are receiving this message because you are on ] for ]. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is {{tqq|The interaction of named parties in the ] topic area and examination of the ] process that led to ] ] to ]}}. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, '''the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days''', until '''23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)'''. Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on ], providing a reason with ] as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the ] '''has been extended by a week''', and will now close at '''23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)'''. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:HouseBlaster@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260342644 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 17, manually published--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1262352523 -->

==Happy Holidays==
{| style="background-color: #A3E4D7; border: 1px solid #117A65;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" |
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
<div class="center">
<big><big><big><big><big>'''The 12 Days of Misplaced Pages'''</big></big></big></big></big></br>
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me </br>
12 ]</br>
11 ]</br>
10 ]</br>
9 ]</br>
8 ] ]</br>
7 ] Socking</br>
6 ] Clerking</br>
5 ]</br>
4 ]</br>
3 ]</br>
2 ]</br>
and an ] in a pear tree.</br>
</br>
-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>This message was generated using ''{{((}}]{{))}}''</small>
</div>
<!-- this template was generated using {{Template:The 12 Days of Misplaced Pages}} -->
|}

== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->

Latest revision as of 00:02, 25 December 2024

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
  • post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
  • governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
  • climate change
  • articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
  • COVID-19, broadly construed
They should not be given alerts for those areas.
Archiving icon
Archives

] ] ] ]


Republican Party article

Springee I'm confused and surprised at your position on this issue. Should we exclude mentions of White supremacy from certain parts of the Democratic Party (United States) article as well? DN (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic” is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks DN. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. Springee (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

SamuelRiv and right-wing populism

I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child pbp 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way. pbp 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You know better than to deny good faith

As you did at Talk:Andy Ngo Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Misplaced Pages says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. Springee (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. TarnishedPath 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPath 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPath 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPath 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.
In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. TarnishedPath 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. TarnishedPath 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC

If you're going to go through and add notes like that to Green sources about 'activist' then I'm sure you wouldn't object to others doing likewise to any source that uses the term 'journalist'? I don't think it's very productive to be quibbling over sources which have been found on the whole to be generally reliable. Do you agree? TarnishedPath 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a discussion for the article talk page. Springee (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nike

Offtopic, so I am posting here, but have you looked at Nike, Inc.? Polygnotus (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I recall there being an essay on this. It isn't wp:OTHER but it might have been similar. Basically the idea is that because Misplaced Pages doesn't have a central editor we shouldn't presume that any particular article should be seen as the standard for how another article should be presented. What this could indicate is that both articles need fixing. Springee (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... Polygnotus (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Nike article in general but I would presume the offshore labor issues would be the primary controversy. Springee (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I crazy?!

Hello Springee, I feel comfortable sharing my thoughts about the GSL discussions with you, as you are much more experienced here and can likely help me put things into context. Please refer to my last comment regarding this here.

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable not to adopt a new title for the GSL page or to maintain the current status quo? I understand that I am just one editor, and that no article or article title needs to meet my individual standards, but I genuinely struggle to see why my comments or points aren’t blatantly obvious to everyone else. What am I missing here? Fenharrow (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Fenharrow, I've been offline for a few days. I think your POV is quite reasonable. An issue with Misplaced Pages, and something we just need to work around, is that numbers are often more important that what we feel is the best argument. That isn't to say that quality of argument means nothing but absent some sort of agreed mediator we often are stuck with numbers on the talk page. I've seen cases where the small talk page consensus (say 3 vs 1) becomes a clear consensus in favor of the "1" after a RfC. Other times we are stuck trying to realize where the limits are (it seems getting consensus to move this article isn't happening right now). So the options are trying to make a case at a notice board where more uninvolved editors can weigh in, or work within the current article structure to try to fix things as much as possible. It can be frustrating and if you need to, take a break or just post agreements with the editors with whom you do agree. Remember that the other side might be feeling the same way and we should try to keep all the replies about the issues at hand. BTW, I do think it's reasonable to say how a new bit of text might be viewed by a reader. "A reader is likely to view that as biased because..." For what it's worth, a lot of changes have been made to the article of late but I'm not sure I've seen a true consensus for many of them, especially the removal of "political term" from the opening of the lead. Springee (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah! It's great to hear from you, Springee! Ideally, I would start an RM seeking "Private Sale Exemption" (PSE), but has that ship sailed already? Interestingly, some editors who opposed the previous RMs seem to agree that PSE and GSL are "largely synonymous". Allowing the article to remain as GSL feels like a disservice to anyone on Misplaced Pages seeking to learn about the subject. I would like to challenge the page title. When do you think would be a suitable time to do that? Alternatively, merging GSL with "Gun Shows in the United States" also seems to work. Please share your thoughts! Fenharrow (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template: Conservatism in the US on Southern strategy

I'm responding to your reply here, because by misrepresenting my position (unintentionally or not), and then pointing to "my efforts", it seems to have become more personal in nature.

"I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You said "we are talking about a simple template". If that is all this is why put so much effort to justify inclusion?

Framing my questions and comments as "putting so much effort to justify" puts the focus on me, not on the discussion or the arguments at hand. Conversely, it also conveniently ignores the "effort" you've also put in thus far.
I am required to assume good faith, but I'm concerned with the timing in which you decided to to remove Southern Strategy from the history section on the WP:NAVBOX at Template:Conservatism US.
With all due respect the timing of your edit on the template, in combination with the recent turn in the discussion raises serious concerns that I am under no obligation to deal with.
As a result, I will no longer be participating in that discussion, and I will let Biohistorian15 decide if they wish to continue.

Best of luck to you both.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

The 12 Days of Misplaced Pages
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barnstars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5 Check Users
4 Oversighters
3 GAs
2 Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Misplaced Pages}}

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)