Emptying the trash |
|||
Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> |
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> |
||
(Removed) |
|||
== Do you have questions regarding the role of sources on Wikipedia? == |
|||
1. You were the one of the most active editors at [[Eddie Eagle]]. In April 2017 you delete the following content and sources from [[Eddie Eagle]] ({{diff2|776566987|diff}}), while offering no alternative summarization of the sources you removed: |
|||
{{Collapse top|title=Text and references deleted from Eddie Eagle}} |
|||
Empirical evaluations show that the Eddie Eagle program is ineffective in reducing child gun-play behavior. |
|||
In 1996 pediatric psychologist Marjorie Sanfilippo Hardy, then Assistant Professor at the [[University of North Carolina at Charlotte]], conducted some of the first empirical evaluations of firearm safety programs for children, and developed an experimental methodology of dividing subjects into control and treatment groups, presenting the firearm safety program to the treatment group, and then observing subjects in a simulated gun access situation. The intervention used in this study used procedures and materials similar to those of the Eddie Eagle program. Hardy reported that the intervention failed to significantly reduce the children’s gun-play behavior.<ref name=Himle2004Pediatrics/><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Marjorie Sanfilippo |last=Hardy |last2=Armstrong |first2=FD |last3=Martin |first3=BL |last4=Strawn |first4=KN |title=A firearm safety program for children: they just can’t say no |journal=[[Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics]] |publisher=Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics |year=1996 |volume=17 |pages=216–221 |pmid=8856516}}</ref> |
|||
Two 2004 studies published in ''[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]]'' found that the Eddie Eagle program was ineffective at teaching children gun safety skills. Himle ''et al.'' studied a sample of preschool-aged children (ages 4 and 5) and Gatheridge ''et al.'' studied a sample of children ages 6 and 7. In both studies, children with and without participating in the program were presented with simulated gun access situations. In both studies, the Eddie Eagle program was found to be effective in teaching children to verbalize the gun safety messages, but none of the children who participated in the Eddie Eagle program were able to perform the safety behaviors in the simulated situations.<ref name=Himle2004Pediatrics>{{cite journal |last1=Himle |first1=MB |last2=Miltenberger |first2=RG |last3=Gatheridge |first3=BJ |last4=Flessner |first4=CA |title=An evaluation of two procedures for training skills to prevent gun play in children |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |date=January 2004 |volume=113 |issue=1 Pt 1 |pages=70–7 |pmid=14702451 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/1/70.full |doi=10.1542/peds.113.1.70}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gatheridge |first1=BJ |last2=Miltenberger |first2=RG |last3=Huneke |first3=DF |last4=Satterlund |first4=MJ |last5=Mattern |first5=AR |last6=Johnson |first6=BM |last7=Flessner |first7=CA |title=Comparison of two programs to teach firearm injury prevention skills to 6- and 7-year-old children. |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |date=September 2004 |volume=114 |issue=3 |pages=e294-9 |pmid=15342889 |doi=10.1542/peds.2003-0635-L |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/3/e294.short}}</ref> |
|||
Kelso ''et. al.'' (2007) in the journal ''Education and Treatment of Children'' evaluated the effectiveness of the Eddie Eagle program among 8 and 9 year olds and found that the Eddie Eagle program was effective in teaching children to verbally identify the correct safety behaviors, but was not significantly effective in performance in role-play assessments.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Pamela D. |last1=Kelso |first2=Raymond G. |last2=Miltenberger |first3=Marit A. |last3=Waters |first4=Kristin |last4=Egemo-Helm |first5=Angela G. |last5=Bagne |title=Teaching Skills to Second and Third Grade Children to Prevent Gun Play: A Comparison of Procedures |journal=Education and Treatment of Children |volume=30 |number=3 |year=2007 |pages=29–48 |accessdate=December 22, 2016 |doi=10.1353/etc.2007.0016 |issn=1934-8924 |publisher=[[West Virginia University Press]] |pmc=2846578}}</ref> |
|||
Pediatric medicine, child psychology, and pediatric nursing professionals conclude that the Eddie Eagle program is ineffective in reducing child gun-play behavior. |
|||
Jackman ''et. al'' (2001) wrote in ''[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]]'' that although the Eddie Eagle program "has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun? |first1=Geoffrey A. |last1=Jackman |first2=Mirna M. |last2=Farah |first3=Arthur L. |last3=Kellermann |authorlink3=Arthur Kellermann |first4=Harold K. |last4=Simon |publisher=[[American Academy of Pediatrics]] |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |date=June 2001 |volume=107 |number=6 |pages=1247-1250 |doi=10.1542/peds.107.6.1247 |pmid=11389238 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247}}</ref> |
|||
A 2002 survey article by Hardy published in the journal ''[[The Future of Children]]'' in a special issue on the topic of "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence" identified the Eddie Eagle program as "perhaps the most popular" gun avoidance program for prekindergarten through the sixth grade but said the program "does not give children a reason for avoiding guns (such as that guns are dangerous)" and that "The NRA offers no empirical evidence that its approach is effective."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Behavior-Oriented Approaches to Reducing Youth Gun Violence |first=Marjorie S. |last=Hardy |journal=[[The Future of Children]] |volume=12 |number=2 |year=2002 |pmid=12194605 |url=http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=42&articleid=168}}</ref> |
|||
Himle ''et. al'' (2004), in the ''[[Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis]]'', wrote "...few investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of programs designed to teach children appropriate safety skills to use when they find a firearm. The few investigations that have been conducted have shown existing programs to be ineffective..."<ref>{{cite journal |journal=[[Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis]] |last1=Himle |first1=Michael B. |first2=Raymond G. |last2=Miltenberger |first3=Christopher |last3=Flessner |first4=Brian |last4=Gatheridge |title=Teaching safety skills to children to prevent gun play |volume=37 |number=1 |year=2004 |pages=1-9 |pmc=1284473 |url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-1/abstract |doi=10.1901/jaba.2004.37-1 |accessdate=December 7, 2016}}</ref> |
|||
A 2004 survey of the literature and critical review of prevention strategies for unintended firearms injuries to children in the journal ''Education and Treatment of Children'' concluded "existing child-based firearm-safety programs do not reduce children's injury risk...Although knowledge of what one should do may be valuable, research suggests that knowledge of skills often does not correspond with actual behavior."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Himle |first1=Michael B. |first2=Raymond G. |last2=Miltenberger |title=Preventing unintentional firearm injury in children: The need for behavioral skills training |journal=Education and Treatment of Children |year=2004 |pages=161–177 |issn=0748-8491 |publisher=[[West Virginia University Press]]}}</ref> |
|||
Glatt (2005) in the ''Journal of Pediatric Nursing'' wrote of the Eddie Eagle program "The NRA believes that it can be effective by teaching children the simple, straightforward message to stop, do not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult when confronted by the presence of a firearm...This is an unrealistic expectation based on the cognitive abilities of children in this age group."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Kathleen |last=Glatt |title=Child-to-Child Unintentional Injury and Death from Firearms in the United States: What can be Done? |journal=Journal of Pediatric Nursing |volume=20 |number=6 |date=December 2005 |pages=448–452 |issn=0882-5963 |pmid=16298286 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596305003076 |doi=10.1016/j.pedn.2005.08.006}}</ref> |
|||
In 1992 the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) adopted a position critical of the program, discouraged its use, cited the lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy, and recommended an absence of guns from children's homes, or trigger locks or gun safes, as more effective alternatives. The AAP renewed its recommendations in 2000 and 2012.<ref name=brody/><ref>{{cite journal |publisher=[[American Academy of Pediatrics]] |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |title=Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population |pages=788-790 |issn=0031-4005 |year=1992 |volume=89 |number=4 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/89/4/788.full.pdf |pmid=1557283}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |publisher=[[American Academy of Pediatrics]] |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |title=Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population |issn=0031-4005 |date=April 2000 |volume=105 |number=4 |url= http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888 |pages=888-895 |pmid=10742344}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |publisher=[[American Academy of Pediatrics]] |journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]] |title=Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population |date=November 2012 |volume=130 |number=5 |pages=1416-1423 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.short |pmid=23080412 |doi=10.1542/peds.2012-2481}}</ref> |
|||
The gun control advocacy organizations the [[Violence Policy Center]] and the [[Brady Campaign|Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence]] were critical of the program.<ref name=vpc>{{cite book |last1=Glick |first1=Susan |last2=Sugarmann |first2=Josh |author2-link=Josh Sugarmann |title=Joe Camel with Feathers: How the NRA with Gun and Tobacco Industry Dollars Uses its Eddie Eagle Program to Market Guns to Kids |url=http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddiecon.htm |publisher=[[Violence Policy Center]] |date=November 19, 1997 |accessdate=December 7, 2016 |isbn=9780927291163}}</ref><ref name=brady>{{cite news |authorlink=Paul Helmke |first=Paul |last=Helmke |title=NRA’s "Eddie Eagle" Doesn’t Fly or Protect |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nras-eddie-eagle-doesnt-f_b_572285.html |date=May 11, 2010 |accessdate=December 7, 2016 |publisher=[[The Huffington Post]]}}</ref> In November, 1997 the non-profit [[Violence Policy Center]] published a study entitled "Joe Camel With Feathers." Key findings included: |
|||
<blockquote>The primary goal of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth. The Eddie Eagle program employs strategies similar to those utilized by America's tobacco industry—from youth "educational" programs that are in fact marketing tools to the use of appealing cartoon characters that aim to put a friendly face on a hazardous product.<ref name=vpc/></blockquote> |
|||
Other key findings included that "the NRA uses the Eddie Eagle as a lobbying tool" in its opposition to [[child access prevention law]]s and mandatory [[Gun safety#Locks|trigger lock]] laws; that "Rather than recognizing the inherent danger firearms in the home pose to children, and the often irresponsible firearms storage behavior of adults, the Eddie Eagle program places the onus of safety and responsibility on the children themselves"; and that "Public health researchers have found that 'gun safety' programs like Eddie Eagle are ineffective in preventing unintentional death and injury from firearms."<ref name=vpc/> The study's key findings were summarized in major newspapers including ''[[The New York Times]]'',<ref name=nyt19971109/> ''[[The Washington Post]]'',<ref>{{cite news |last=Walsh |first=Sharon |title=Gun Sellers Look to Future -- Children |page=1 |date=March 28, 1998 |accessdate=December 21, 2016 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> and the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''<ref name="Bendavid">{{cite news|url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-20/news/9711200268_1_eddie-eagle-program-nra-representatives-gun-safety-programs|title=NRA Safety Cartoon Attacked: Gun-control Report Calls Eddie Eagle A Bird Of Prey|date=November 20, 1997|first1=Naftali|last1= Bendavid|newspaper=Chicago Tribune }}</ref> as well as regional newspapers including ''[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]'',<ref name=phildelphiainquirer>{{cite news |last=Matza |first=Michael |title=NRA GUN-SAFETY PROGRAM IS HIT WITH YOUNG CHILDREN |newspaper=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]] |date=June 5, 1998 |accessdate=December 21, 2016}}</ref> [[Newsday]],<ref>{{cite news |first=Marie |last=Cocco |title=It's Eddie Eagle - the NRA's Predatory Mascot |newspaper=[[Newsday]] |date=November 20, 1997 |accessdate=December 21, 2016}}</ref> ''[[The Times-Picayune]]'',<ref>{{cite news |last=Seelye |first=Katharine Q. |title=NRA LURING CHILDREN, ANTI-GUN GROUP SAYS EDDIE EAGLE LIKENED TO DISGRACED JOE CAMEL |newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]] |date=November 20, 1997 |accessdate=December 21, 2016}}</ref> and others, and in ''Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law'' edited by Gregg Lee Carter, professor of history at [[Bryant University]] in the encyclopedia's article on Eddie Eagle by [[Robert Spitzer (political scientist)|Robert J. Spitzer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law |volume=1 |first=Robert J. |last=Spitzer |authorlink=Robert Spitzer (political scientist) |editor-first=Gregg Lee |editor-last=Carter |isbn=9780313386701 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |year=2012 |chapter=Eddie Eagle}}</ref> The NRA called the study "ludicrous" and threatened to sue the Violence Policy Center.<ref name=nyt19971109>{{cite news |title=Critics Say N.R.A. Uses Safety Campaign to Lure Children |last=Seelye |first=Katharine Q. |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=November 9, 1997 |page=24 |accessdate=December 8, 2016 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/19/us/critics-say-nra-uses-safety-campaign-to-lure-children.html}}</ref> |
|||
In 2010, [[Paul Helmke]], president and chief executive officer of the [[Brady Campaign|Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence]], writing in ''[[The Huffington Post]]'', called for an end to the Eddie Eagle program, describing the program as a "misguided excuse for gun safety education" and writing "The NRA dresses up its gun safety course in the guise of a colorful cartoon character named Eddie Eagle. Yet there is absolutely no evidence directly linking the use of the Eddie Eagle program to a decline in children’s deaths by guns."<ref name=brady/> |
|||
In 2004, ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]'' "Personal Health" columnist [[Jane Brody]] wrote that the NRA underwrote the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program "in part hoping to avert more stringent gun control laws."<ref name=brody>{{cite news |title=Keeping Guns Out of Children's Hands |first=Jane E. |last=Brody |authorlink=Jane Brody |date=August 17, 2004 |accessdate=December 7, 2016 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/health/personal-health-keeping-guns-out-of-children-s-hands.html}}</ref> |
|||
Editorial boards have been critical of the program. In 1998 ''[[The New York Times]]'' editorialized "...the N.R.A. is using this educational program to fight restrictions on gun access that would actually prevent youngsters from killing themselves and others. The organization has promoted the use of the feathery cartoon character Eddie in classrooms as an alternative to laws that would mandate trigger locks or require adults to keep guns stored in places reasonably inaccessible to children."<ref name=nyt19980411>{{cite news |title=Don't Shoot. Run for Mommy. |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=April 11, 1998 |page=10 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/opinion/don-t-shoot-run-for-mommy.html}}</ref> In 2000 ''[[The Economist]]'' said that the program treats children as the problem rather than guns. It says the NRA sends a mixed message, noting that the organization encourages gun use by children as young as seven or eight years old in its magazine ''InSights''.<ref name="Economist">{{cite news |title=Youth & age: Playing with fire |magazine=[[The Economist]] |date=December 23, 2000 |pages=37–39 |url=http://www.economist.com/node/457168 |accessdate=April 14, 2017}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{Collapse bottom}} |
|||
Presumably you are aware of the disagreement among reliable sources regarding the characterization by the NRA of Eddie Eagle as a "firearms safety program for children." Yet, |
|||
2. On 19 March 2018 you attempted to add to [[National Rifle Association]] ({{diff2|831146186|diff}}) the following content, sourced solely to the NRA, and 3 hours later initiated an RFC: |
|||
<blockquote>The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety for children and adults, including a program for school-age children, the NRA's "[[Eddie Eagle]]". The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors.<ref name=NRAtraining>{{cite web |url=http://www.nrahq.org/EDUCATION/Training/trainingcounselors/workshops.asp |title=Education & Training |year=2012|publisher=National Rifle Association HQ|accessdate=January 25, 2013}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
Please ask for help from the community in clarifying these issues. |
|||
# Do you have any questions we can help you with regarding the role of sources in Wikipedia? |
|||
# Do you recognize the distinction between Wikipedia voice, the NRA voice, and your own point of view? |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/108.243.118.137|108.243.118.137]] ([[User talk:108.243.118.137|talk]]) 19:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
±== Removal of discretionary sanctions talk page alerts? == |
|||
On 21 March 2018 you removed the [[Template:Ds/talk notice|discretionary sanctions alert]]s from the talk pages of several articles: |
|||
# [[Gun violence]] |
|||
# [[List of firearm court cases in the United States]] |
|||
# [[Public opinion on gun control in the United States]] |
|||
# [[Smith and Wesson]] |
|||
* Do you believe these articles are not within scope of [[WP:ARBGC]]? |
|||
* Do you believe the encyclopedia is improved by removing these alerts? |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/108.243.118.137|108.243.118.137]] ([[User talk:108.243.118.137|talk]]) 19:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
: Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
::If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
::If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:17, 23 March 2018
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.Anmccaff (talk) 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.Anmccaff (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Engagement with Streetcar conspiracy article
Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:
- 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 Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: and Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston).
I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!
-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Spring
Are you looking for the old content of a redirect . You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/wiki/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live?Springee (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Addressing NPOV problems with MJ article
I admire your patience at The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks . I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.
I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?
I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"
I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).
NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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? Springee (talk) 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? --Ronz (talk) 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 Springee (talk) 01:45, 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? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (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? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (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.
- However, articles such as this one by CNN [[1]] 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 Wikipedia'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?
- 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 Springee (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've not looked closely at the article and its references.
- You're not answering my general question about the approach, so let's try specifics:
- I think this 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? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (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 "[organization] 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. Springee (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just a follow up on my thoughts above, I think the "dirty dozen" or even similar label would be a violation of WP:LABEL. 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. Springee (talk) 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.
- "[organization] 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? --Ronz (talk) 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. Springee (talk) 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. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 26 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. Springee (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just a follow up on my thoughts above, I think the "dirty dozen" or even similar label would be a violation of WP:LABEL. 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. Springee (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
And it was promptly removed...
Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article? Springee (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Your edit on the Monckton talk page
Hello,
I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors. 1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy, see here. 2. Your edit here moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".
If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.
Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right about my sig Peter, I already moved my sig back to its correct place though. Thanks for noticing! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Easy as Pie!...
3.1415926535897932 AnønʘmøưṨ 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
No link for your rfc request
There is no link provided for your rfc request on the admin board which you posted (only red link): ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Could you fix it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, Fixed! Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Response
Yes, it's important to be measured, careful and respectful -- and I'm trying to see where this is going to fall out.
- Seams reasonable. As a point of reference, HughD and I don't have a good editorial relationship and I believe he came to the Pinto article because I was working on it.Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
HughD Wikihounding
HughD, you previously accused me of wiki-hounding (here for example [2] and in this complaint [3]). You asked that I not be allowed to follow you around and you cited Callanecc as "an admin" asking me to stop. Since March 2nd you have followed me to the [Ford Pinto] topic, a topic I've been involved with for some time. You have, until earlier this month, no history of editing automotive topics. Your behavior on that topic has resulted in a page lock and frustration among other editors Greglocock in particular. You have since followed me to the Chrysler article and directly reverted one of my edits (my edit, [4]: your reversion [5]). This reversion was made without talk page comment. Given your claims of wikihounding it is now clear you are trying to wikihound me. I would suggest you follow Fyddlestix's advice[6], avoid each other. Following me to topics I've edited certainly is NOT avoiding. If this continues to other articles I will open an ANI. Springee (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please focus on content, WP:FOC; thank you. Regarding your recent section blanking of the "Product recalls" section from our article Chrysler, is it your position that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hugh, this is my talk page and the subject of this discussion is your disruptive editing and following me to various automotive articles. If you disagree with the Chrysler edit perhaps you should join the talk page discussion where I started a topic related to the material you are adding against WP:Project Automobile guidelines. Springee (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Springer, I found this info. on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV page, which "clearly" states Jimbo Wales commenting about having an editor having a minority point of view and placing its information on Wikipedia.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
I hope that the above info. will help with the disruptive editing done by HughD and placing an unnecessary NPOV tag on the main Chrysler article page.
Advice
Given your long history of disputes with HughD, I recommend heeding the counsel given at the recent ANI regarding the two of you. Even though an IBAN wasn't officially imposed, I think you should act like one was (even if HughD isn't). HughD is likely facing an expanded block or ban at WP:AE, and that will happen regardless of any actions you take. So my advice is to take a break from any articles the both of you have been editing on, wait for him to face his sanctions, then clean up the mess later. There is no deadline. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Safehaven86, thanks. I was taking the bait wasn't I. It was disappointing to see that he felt it was perfectly OK to return to old topics and start fighting again. I had intended to fully disengage (auto topics excluded). I'm sorry that Hugh wasn't willing to do the same. Please note I have not made any article edits, only limited comments on talk pages (Pinto edits excluded) Springee (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries. Believe me, I understand your pain. I can only guess the user in question sees the writing on the wall in terms of future anticipated blocks/bans and has decided to go a bit kamikaze as a last hurrah. That's the only motive I can think of for the recent behavior. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. I doubt any traveling is taking place, except to newer and more distant forms of logical fallacies. Or maybe a car show, given the newfound interest! I suspect it's a WP:TEND attempt to copy you (when you said you were traveling and away from the internet in this ANI thread, he openly guffawed). In any event, looks like he'll soon be blocked for 30 days so I'd continue to wait it out before reengaging on articles where he's active. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Safehaven86, I had similar thoughts about the travel part. Springee (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. If his most recent trip to AE doesn't sufficiently chasten him (and it doesn't appear it is going to, unsurprisingly), I am prepared to file an ANI report based on his long-term harassment of me, starting with him copying my user page and continuing with his frequent unfounded claims that I'm some sort of self-appointed gate-keeper of conservative articles on Wikipedia. Only one of us has a topic ban in that area and yeah, it's not me. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Safehaven86, I have no doubt a disruptive editor will be reading this shortly. Regardless, any suggestions on how to get him to respect the community consensus and leave the automotive space? [13]
- Safehaven86, do you think this addition is information or politics? [14] Springee (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Safehaven86, I have no doubt a disruptive editor will be reading this shortly. Regardless, any suggestions on how to get him to respect the community consensus and leave the automotive space? [13]
Hot cars
A Chrysler PT Cruiser for you! | |
Thank you for your constructive edits on chrysler. I appreciate it! FixCop (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:SIG MCX
Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?
Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), you have elected to cut off communication on your talk page. Until such time as you are willing to discuss what ever issues you have with me on your talk page you are prohibited from posting on my talk page. I'm sorry it has come to this and hope that we can put these issues behind us in the future. Springee (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I would note that despite your attacks on my character related to the exclusion of material from the F-650 and Caprice articles, it appears the community strongly supports the same view I had. Please keep that in mind the next time you accuse an editor of malice because they don't see things your way. (PS: You may reply here to this topic) Springee (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:HUSH and WP:POLEMIC. You've been told to cease bothering me with your talk page warnings. Don't come to my talk page to announce what you think I've done wrong, and don't use your talk page for the same purpose. Using Template:User to trigger a ping, as a transparent ploy to work-around your being banned from my talk page, is harassment. Either make your case at a noticeboard, or stop following me around, criticizing me and complaining about me. If you would spend your time building an encyclopedia, instead of obsessively fighting these narrowly-focused battles, you wouldn't have personal conflicts of this nature. Do you see any other editor who literally has nothing else to do on Wikipedia except fight over this F-650 thing? You're the only one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- You should probably review HUSH and POLEMIC a bit more carefully before throwing out another accusation of bad faith. I certainly can't understand why you are fighting over "this F-650 thing". You are trying to tell others to just accept the content as not worth fighting over (yet you went to 3RR in 1 hour due to this content). You are almost trying to shame the majority who doesn't agree with you into dropping the topic. You have made a lot of ugly accusations against me as part of this process. I would ask you to look in the mirror and see just how many apply to your behavior in this matter. Springee (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I don't want to continuously argue with you. Please drop it. Springee (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism
The edit you reverted here was not vandalism: [15]. Please review the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" at WP:VANDAL. Basically, if the edit was intended to improve the encyclopedia then it isn't vandalism, even if you disagree with it. Falsely labelling an editor as a vandal is a form of personal attack. Felsic2 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I would say that was vandalism. The edit wasn't intended to improve anything. That IP editor is hounding me (note that the IP followed me from the Mini-14 article). Also note that there was no discussion before restoring the material and that much of that material was already added to the article thus restoring as was results in a great deal of redundant text. That isn't an attempt to improve, that is a trolling editor. Springee (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think that following an editor is evidence of bad intent? If so, I'd encourage you to look at your own behavior. And no, \adding well-cited, factual, relevant material is not "vandalism", even if you don't like it. If you're not sure on that point we can ask an admin. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- That depends on the nature of the edit. In this case the IP editor was likely unhappy that I had the page semi protected and thus followed me to Eddie Eagle to revenge revert. The Chicago based IP editor was not revenge reverting but I think you can admit the UK based editor was not trying to build rather was simply trying to be a pest. If that IP wanted to build the talk page was there and you even asked that he join the conversation. Has he? Springee (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think that following an editor is evidence of bad intent? If so, I'd encourage you to look at your own behavior. And no, \adding well-cited, factual, relevant material is not "vandalism", even if you don't like it. If you're not sure on that point we can ask an admin. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Election maps
Thank you for your comments on our talk page on the Washington Presidentiak election. I believe Dennis, while trying to aid Wikipedia, has over stepped the boundaries regarding biases in showing counties in the maps. I believe the pie chart to be a poor use of space in the infoboxes, but I fear he will have me blocked for speaking out. Can you help me make sure the mos are restored? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@PalmerTheGolfer:, thanks. Sadly it also resulted in the notice just above your comment. Springee (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@PalmerTheGolfer:, this might be thrown at me later there are a lot of claims of hounding going around. Those claims are problematic because wp:hounding isn't just, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." It also includes this important sentence, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (emphasis mine). If an editor is making a series of changes to a number of articles then it isn't hounding get involved with those additional articles. It's unfortunate that a generally good editor is edit warring and throwing out such accusations (I've been on the receiving end as well) simply because others don't agree. Even worse when local consensus (of just a few editors) is clearly against the change. Anyway, I would suggest created a RfC to address the issue. Springee (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of General Motors into General Motors. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC by sock
Since these guys insist on playing this charade, it's probably worth it to put your !vote on the discussion so that later on, *cough* someone doesn't claim you didn't oppose it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- New IP editing that RfC....from Amazon hosting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, typical of HughD. I've mentioned it to The Wordsmith and Fyddlestyx. Fyddlestyx and I rarely agree but he is a good and reasonable editor. He is also aware of HughD's history. Note that The Wordsmith has said on his talk page that he believes the IP is Hugh. I think second SPI request may be in order. Springee (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Motor vehicle ranking
In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.
Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?
I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.
This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved. Stepho talk 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Stepho, I think that is perfectly reasonable. The previous conversation seemed to have died out with 3 editors supporting the changes and one against. I don't count the IP troll. I was hoping the NOR discussion would have addressed the question and I tried to phrase the question neutrally. Perhaps with your clearer phrasing we can get an outside opinion and put the issue to bed. Springee (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:Spa
Hey Springee, so if you look at Template:spa, you'll notice that it says it should be substed whenever it is used. I actually do understand that it might look a little underhanded to be substing a template that's nominated for deletion, but I explicitly said on the deletion page that I was going through the transclusions per the template's instructions. Please be more careful--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
Please do not refactor or remove other editors' comments at talk pages as you have done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is no proof yet that the present IP is a sockpuppet of HughD, although the duck test would seem to indicate it. But that is not relevant, because removing comments possibly (or even probably) made by blocked users is not an exception to WP:TPO, which is a behavioural guideline that we are expected to follow for good reason. You may be confusing the situation with the practice of automatically reverting contributions of site-banned users, but there is a very real difference between that and doing the same with a suspected sock of a blocked user. I hope you'll understand that the text I've restored is content that I think is useful, as well as content that had already been replied to by Doc James. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RexxS:, I understand your concern. However, I also fear that restoring the blocked editor's content will simply encourage more IP jumping and disruptive edits. The content you restored wasn't disruptive per se but the long series of edits by this IP editor has included a number of disruptive edits ([[16]], [[17]])). Regardless of if we have proof that this is HughD, the SPI discussed here [[18]] did conclude that we are dealing with one editor (most likely HughD). Regardless of if this is HughD, the editor has been declared WP:ILLEGIT, [[19]]. As an illegitimate editor again it's best to not encourage and remove contributions. Other editors should know who they are replying to. Springee (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding. Nevertheless, the talk page guidelines are important to observe and I did do the research into the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive, before concluding that the question raised by Doc James was legitimately answered, and that it was more important to preserve the debate in this case. I have to say that WP:ILLEGIT is not a label to be hung around an editor's neck like an albatross; it is a policy designed to prevent the use of
"alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus."
I do not accept that it is appropriate to apply that to the dialogue that occurred at WT:MED. I do understand your frustration with this editor and respect the investment you have made in attempting to prevent disruption from him. However, my experience is that automatically reverting contributions by blocked (not banned) users without any consideration of the value of those contributions is counter-productive more often than not. You only have to look at User talk:HughD to see a previously constructive editor who got a "bee-in-his-bonnet" about US politics and went off the rails. You need to ask yourself what long-term outcome you're looking for? If you want to play "whack-a-mole" with an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses in the hope that he'll get fed up, you're on the right track. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to see his energies diverted into useful editing, you need to stop discouraging the contributions that have some potential value, and reserve the WP:RBI treatment for the clearly unconstructive ones. You've been here very nearly as long as I have, so you'll have your own experiences, and your assessment of what's best may differ from mine, but I hope you can accept that I'm trying to give advice that I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)- @RexxS:, Unfortunately the SPI page doesn't mention the third, offline SPI. Blanking the additions made by this IP has been the practice of at least one involved admin (I posted some examples at the project medicine discussion). I was following that example. The long term outcome I would like is for the IP editor to stop hounding my edits. Beyond that I would accept HughD's return if he would change his behavior and actually work with other editors (some of what you are seeing is the behavior that has been around for many years and resulted in a topic ban that evolved to an edit block. In any case, this may end up in ANI though I'm not optimistic that would result in much. At best he would be a banned editor and then his edits could be reverted once the next IP was identified as his (a real problem here). I don't believe his recent edits were all that productive. Taking an article that needs help and dumping a strongly biased presentation of the facts, isn't really improving things. Anyway, I didn't realize his edits had been replied to when I removed them. Springee (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding. Nevertheless, the talk page guidelines are important to observe and I did do the research into the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive, before concluding that the question raised by Doc James was legitimately answered, and that it was more important to preserve the debate in this case. I have to say that WP:ILLEGIT is not a label to be hung around an editor's neck like an albatross; it is a policy designed to prevent the use of
Pintography
Is that HD, ya think? Anmccaff (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anmccaff:, smells like it. Look at all the IPs I dealt with a few weeks back. This one is doing some of the same things. We have tagging vs fixing. IP address that is hard to trace. Starts by creating a user page as an ip. Clearly knows their way around Wikipedia. Not certain like some of the previous cases but smells none the less. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thanks for this [20] DN (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
Your pal HughD is back...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that Sockpuppet Investigation
I see it was declined Checkuser but the behavior pattern does seem clear enough to me as well. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ford Pinto you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto
The article Ford Pinto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ford Pinto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Marquardtika (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
AFP IP revert
Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't realize that but good to know. Given the very political nature of the article I'm always suspicious of IP editors that add one line paragraphs. It's good to have a second set of eyes review things. Springee (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI
Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos [[21]]. Thanks for letting me know. Springee (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE.Springee (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
NRA poll
The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;
To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013.
If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Darrenhusted:, this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
A toast sandwich for you!
Thanks, i was working on it, Kvalin (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Merely a formality -- it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
3RR
It looks like this was your 4th revert in the past 24 hours [22]; please consider self-reverting. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:, you are correct. Sorry about that. I still think the changes need to be made. Let me know what you think of the updates. Springee (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for self-reverting. I will comment further about the raid, etc on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
HEADS UP!
We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather --Limpscash (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Potential advocacy at National Rifle Association
Hi Springee, I'm referring you to these two threads:
- Talk:National_Rifle_Association#The_ATF_and_Senate_confirmations
- Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Somewhat_off-topic_discussion_on_neutrality
These edits and positions look like WP:SOAP, which is not allowed per the AE gun control case that you've been alerted about. Please consider self-reverting and discussing the challenged edits further on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman:, I disagree. Removing the information results in a NPOV issue. Telling one side without telling the other isn't OK. Perhaps we need to get some additional eyes on the article. Springee (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
FedEx
Hi Springee, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.
Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Jimgerbig:, in the edit tag I noted the material was WP:Undue. An accusation of advocacy can been seen as not WP:AGF. Remember that RS doesn't mean sufficient Weight. I will add a NPOV yeah to the second when I get a chance to add the appropriate material to the talk page. We both should be discussing the edits there vs here. Springee (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI
BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - theWOLFchild 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oops! I just noticed you already rec'd the same notice above. Oh well. FYI still applies... - theWOLFchild 07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer:, no problem my friend. I was confused at first but saw the IP address. It's a troublesome IP editor from down under. In going to request some IP blocks shortly. Thanks for the note. Springee (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, a block would be good. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI
Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.
Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Miguel Escopeta: Bingo. Springee (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- And, another one, too. User:AlainaP14. Persistent sock puppeteer. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Advocacy concerns at AR-15 style rifle
Re: this edit, if you wish to impune motives to a sources, please use WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. The comments that I have a concern about were:
sourced to an article that is clearly arguing for restrictions on civilian ownership
The NYT article is clearly has a POV
etc.
I've already alerted you to similar concerns earlier. Please keep the DS restrictions in mind. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman:, in this case I stand by those statements. I can add the NPOV tag to the article if that would help but it is clear the NYT article is not a neutral telling of the differences but is an article making a case for restrictions. Those are topics that are within the scope of the talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you consider an expert source (C.J. Chivers) to be non-neutral, while you have recently advocated for using NRA's statements in articles :-). Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman:, let me start with an assumption of good faith. I know we don't agree on some of this but I do trust that you are trying to make the article better for our readers. That is my goal as well. I'll apologize up front if any of my tone comes across poorly. OK, to your questions, Chivers may be well informed but we should keep in mind the nature of the work vs the stated purpose of the section. The NYT article is clearly trying to make a case that the differences between the military and civilian ARs are insignificant and that they are both very deadly etc. Mentioning the recent school shooting before that clearly sets the tone for the article. So if we were just asking Chivers to tell us the differences that would be one thing. However, both the NYT article and much of the information in the the Wiki article is not an apolitical description. You are also correct that I advocated (and still do) citing the NRA directly in the NRA article. However, in that case I'm saying the article should state the NRA's stated position on relevant topics. If the article discusses the "gun show loophole" then summarizing the NRA's stated position on the topic (cited to the NRA) is neutral. It is neutral to say reference a statement of a political candidate from their campaign website (ie John Doe said X in response to Y on their website).
- It's interesting that you consider an expert source (C.J. Chivers) to be non-neutral, while you have recently advocated for using NRA's statements in articles :-). Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I guess to some extent I'm having trouble seeing why you see these as inconsistent position. I see the AR-15 article as apolitical. Yes, mass shootings are political (among other things) but a statement and link to the shooting covers that. Since the AR-15 is the focus of gun control efforts right now it also makes sense to have a dedicated section to that topic in the article. It shouldn't advocate for or against but just state and link to other articles. The rest of the article should be technical or fact based and decidedly apolitical. My issue with the differences section is isn't apolitical.
- The NRA article is another matter. Much of what the NRA is involved with is very political. In that case we should strive to present both sides of a debate. Using my gun show example from above. Lot's of articles have criticized the NRA for not wanting to close the GSL. Well it would make sense to include the NRA's statements saying why they don't want to close it. The NRA's view should be presented as neutrally as possible (ie no messengers altering the message) hence citing the NRA itself (with clear attribution).
Springee, I'd like to return to this diff posted at the beginning by K.e.coffman. In it, you write:
- "The NYT article is clearly has a POV. The basic facts it presents could be sourced to any number of neutral sources."
Am I to understand that you object to use of non-neutral and/or biased sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer:, I think this is a question that should be discussed back at the article talk page. To answer your question, it depends on context. Springee (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just wanted to note that there is no policy which requires sources or content to be "neutral". NPOV expressly allows non-neutral and biased sources. "Neutral" in NPOV refers to editors, not content or sources. Editors are supposed to edit in a neutral manner, and thus they must preserve and reproduce the bias in a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer:, I don't think you are correct in this regard but this is really a comment about the edits at the AR-15 article so we should have the conversation there where others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Springee, I believe you may be misinterpreting how WP:NPOV works. Here's a supplementary essay that you may find useful: User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality. Your editing on the NRA and the AR-15 pages have not been neutral, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Source: WP:Neutrality of sources
- For an in-depth exposition on this, read my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Springee, I believe you may be misinterpreting how WP:NPOV works. Here's a supplementary essay that you may find useful: User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality. Your editing on the NRA and the AR-15 pages have not been neutral, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer:, I don't think you are correct in this regard but this is really a comment about the edits at the AR-15 article so we should have the conversation there where others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just wanted to note that there is no policy which requires sources or content to be "neutral". NPOV expressly allows non-neutral and biased sources. "Neutral" in NPOV refers to editors, not content or sources. Editors are supposed to edit in a neutral manner, and thus they must preserve and reproduce the bias in a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a content related discussion. Please refer to these two sections of the Arbitration Request decision:
- The recent editing has come across as non-neutral and promotional, that's why I'm raising these concerns here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree. The questions are content related noting that neutrality can be a content issue. If you think a specific edit had a neutrality issue it should be discussed at the article talk page. I have real trouble understanding the claim of promotional. Anyway, please move this discussion back to the article page. Springee (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Notification on Wikiproject Firearms
Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners[23]? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans:, sure thing. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
HughD socks
There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Self-published sources
You've been around long enough to know the difference between what we call self-published, specifically " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." and something like the SPLC. We wouldn't call the New York Times self-published either. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller:, looking through the RSN archive it appears that the SPLC intelligence reports are disputed as a RS. But they might be a notable opinion so I used a season to try to establish weight with respect to the topic. I found no external sources noting the SPLC's opinion. When I get the chance I'll bring this up in the talk page. Springee (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, the SPLC is considered a reliable source but in general should be attributed. Sure there are editors who dispute that, but as I said, they are considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- I need to review it more... I'm doing this from my phone... The threads I saw seemed to say reliable for somethings and opinion for other. Since I couldn't find external sources repeating the claim weight came into play. The best thing to do, and my plan after the edit was reverted, was start a talk page discussion. If nothing else, the group's response to the accusations should be added. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, a RS, also for opinion. If there is any doubt, then attribute the opinion in a neutral manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- I need to review it more... I'm doing this from my phone... The threads I saw seemed to say reliable for somethings and opinion for other. Since I couldn't find external sources repeating the claim weight came into play. The best thing to do, and my plan after the edit was reverted, was start a talk page discussion. If nothing else, the group's response to the accusations should be added. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, the SPLC is considered a reliable source but in general should be attributed. Sure there are editors who dispute that, but as I said, they are considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics post-1932
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 - these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:, understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors.Springee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
HughD sock
I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock--RAF910 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- @RAF910:, there have been a number of those socks recently. I pinged NeilN a few times. It's clearly wack a mole. Springee (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, he has only been blocked for 31 hours, so he'll be back.--RAF910 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
(Removed)
- Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)