User talk:Spearmind

Printz Board

Hi, I saw you made a bunch of edits to Printz Board. Could I encourage you to comment and vote on the heinous and unwelcome AfD entry for this article? [[1]].

Thanks!

"Citations are needed....

....because you deleted them. The citation you removed directly covered the question at hand.Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it right in the text instead in reference tags! Furthermore 25 is not covered by source. So "a number of cities" is a solution harming no one. Dont try to guess numbers.Spearmind (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, the number is covered in the cite, page 172, if memory serves, Comes right up if you hit the Hathitrust url.Anmccaff (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you put the reference directly behind the claim. No footnotes (and inline citations) inside reference tags just linking to a real reference! You can link repeatingly to the same source by putting the refname in tags.Spearmind (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article

Thank you for your engagement with General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article. Could I however ask you to respond to my note about the lead length and citations in the lead on the article's talk page? Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded on my talk page re Guy Span. Can we talk about that on the article's talk page? PeterEastern (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you also think we would be better off without Anmccaff's inputm based on your comments on Bejnar's talk page. I have already stopped responding to him on talk, other than in relation to behaviour. I would urge you to ignore the DRN page and only discuss content issues on talk, and only do that if you think it will achieve something. Nothing should stop you continuing to edit the article however. I will pick up with you on the article when the Anmccaff behaviour issues are resolved one way or other. PeterEastern (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this not just a one night edit. The subject is very interesting and I will keep it watching. Conspiracys and conspiracy theories are one thing and when I hear the term "conspiracy theorist" it goes directly against a person with no way to argue about, no matter of what perspective editors should be on alert. Any perspective is welcome. You see I added William Garrison which confirms also the public transportation and its staff have interests and not every time a public transportation has an economical problem its to blame on a conspiracy. Anmccaff creates masses of bytes on talk pages and DRN board but its not helpful for the article. He delivers no reviewable facts for his claims and dont expect answers to your quesions.Spearmind (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not following all your edits in detail. I do love this topic, I like the mystery of something that happened a long time ago and is a bit hazy and I love that period in american transport history. I love the process of discovery and don't care at all as to where that leads and if GM or anyone else comes our well or badly in the process. I will get properly engaged if/when I don't have to engage in what has proved to be completely unproductive activity with Anmccaff. As I say, I have not formed a view as to wether every change you make is a change I would support, but you clearly respect the process, the sources and the community and that is at the core of what makes WP work. Anmccaff appears to think he can ignore that if he wants to. As soon as we are done with the DRN I proposed to request that Anmccaff is required to stay away from this topic for a month while others see what they can do with it. Sounds as though you will be around to edit during that period as well. PeterEastern (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose future changes to the article in the talk page before making large scale revisions. --Springee (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Anmccaff (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happens next re the edit warring incident, but I suggest that while we wait to find out it will probably be best not to respond to posts by Anmccaff anywhere else, even if he tries to provoke a response with comments like 'Please add any lols you need to help understand that'! PeterEastern (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, he did write such nonsense I could not resist. Will be working on myself not commenting his one man show anymore besides when its subject on noticeboards.Spearmind (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I believe that the edit warring discussion is now over - the page has been locked for a week for people to reflect on the issue and their behaviour and I believe that that is all that will happen this time.

I do think you need to be a bit more thoughtful about how you respond to Anmccaff. He is unable to behave in a civil manner and I am confident that he will be given a topic ban for a period of time very soon unless he stops his childish behaviour very rapidly. Don't worry about that. It is a shame at one level because he does know a lot about the subject, however his knowledge is offset by his inability to work with others. While he is still engaged I do suggest that you need to stop responding (I notice that you have responded again to his challenges on the article's talk page which will probably only lead to another fruitless loop round the block). Fyi, I am not going to respond to any content issues until he is out of the way.

I am not even paying a lot of attention to your edits. However.... I couldn't help noticing that you briefly added and then removed a reference to Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown: New Life for Downtowns (Architecture). ISBN 978-0-471-36124-4. in your response to Anmccaff. Personally I wonder if the author is presenting the 'GM streetcar myth' on page 106 rather than fact. It is emotionally written and paints a picture that loss of streetcars was all GM's fault in the way that Bianco, 1988 describes, The book doesn't give the more grounded explanation that this was the inevitable result of many other factors, aided and abetted by GM and their actions for sure, but inevitable all the same given that the relevant policy makers and authorities were not able or prepared to act to limit the restructuring of urban life that mass car use was leading to. As such I don't think we can believe its factual claims of the number of cities involved or use it as evidence for what happened in the 1920s or if GM's NCL connections were secret or not. This is what makes this story so interesting to me and makes establishing what happened so difficult.

Anyway... I am not intending to create another forum to discuss content, but simply to discuss our approach to writing this article that we will take when we are able to discuss such things on the article's talk page again. I will ask Bejnar's advice in a few days about how we proceed. Possibly we have a break during the block period and see if the the chaos starts again when it is lifted and then act. PeterEastern (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the book becauser its citing Goddard.Spearmind (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What do you think "NCL secretly formed". Did not look deeper. "Emotionally written" or the books big picture or what is more grounded or not will alwys be personal views. Our job is to represent all perspectives in the game built around facts. The specific user doubts self published stuff fine, but it does not concern his view about Guy Span. There are different factors what did make the streetcars no longer attractive. I cited a bit already. One editor does not seem to understand that there in fact was a conspiracy to get rid of street cars. He favors "dubious" Guy Span over others. Is the authors real name known in public? Goddard using ""Sloan and his fellow auto makers". Lets see what else we can find.Spearmind (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good discussion, and thanks for responding. Let's pick it up on the articles talk page when we either have Anmccaff working well with the community (which seems very unlikely) or he is out of the picture and we can carry on a rational conversation on the correct venue. Are you ok with that? I did however want to discuss this with you briefly ahead of requesting a topic ban. Thanks again. PeterEastern (talk)

Mara Djordjević

Well that type of csd never comes up on user pages-also I saw the user is blocked as a sock puppet here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ulichar (Though I just noticed that it said that they appealed there block, yet it is listed as a block on the new page feed) Wgolf (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulichar looks not like currently blocked. Would like to give up to 3 months to watch if and where the young article is going.Spearmind (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows why they come up as blocked on the new page feed-that was one I was not sure if to put or not. Well I have it on my watch list though. Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, just lets try not to shoot that fast.Spearmind (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is from January actually-so it is a couple months old, anyway that's it for now! Wgolf (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" article???

I'm not sure what you mean by "our" article or who bemjar is with whom you have been discussing this edit. Could you point me at "your" article and the discussion? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article means GM Streetcar Conspiracy. We had a discussion about use of term "conspiracy theorist". Now where you come from so fast undoing my changes?Spearmind (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a discussion at one page and assume that anyone at other pages will have read or agreed with those discussions. Also please read WP:BRD. Your actions are diving toward to edit warring. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might familiarize yourself with WP:OWN as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously suggest self-reverting and attempting to gain some consensus at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus about using term "conspiracy theorist" at all. Please stop talking here and bring it to articles talk page!Spearmind (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no discussion of this at General Motors streetcar conspiracy, perhaps you could provide a diff? `Capitalismojo (talk) 00:16, 7 March

2015 (UTC)

See here. You know what terms to search for.Spearmind (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit war notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Spearmind. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

--Vsmith (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spearmind (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Im going to remove term "conspiracy theorist" wherever it pops up as long the claim not covered by a cite and I use all my reverts on it. Its not about consensus its about good faith and common sense and to protect wikipedia from ideology. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)" --- Global warming conspiracy theorists typically... - this was claimed to be from Latours article (see pdf in refs) but it was totally wrong cite, misused by whoever was editor here, possible in bad faith. I explained on articles talk too.[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that, and only that, in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: On the basis of the above, I recommend that the block be extended. Spearmind appears to have no concept of what he has done wrong - no concept of WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He asking to block me for the third time, while he also used 3RR but not becoming a block. Highly unfair here. If no one pulls back to my version of "Conspiracy Theory" Im out of here. This is so full of cites in bad faith and its too easy for lies to remain untouched. Harry G West! ref 17 or so (but also Latour) was misused and user on talk page doesnt understand that I changed to real words as used in his book. Its really sad to see to what extend sources are misused here.Spearmind (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's simple. You've made edits which try to hide the fact that conspiracy theorists exist and you made specific edits which make conspiracy theorist nonsense appear more legitimate than it is. Some of what you write specifically promotes conspiracy theories, such as your edit converting " believe in a wide variety of conspiracy theories" to "gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories". Which changes a statement of fact, that conspiratorial types are fairly common, to a claim that this justifies conspiracies. Another example is removing the quotation marks around conspiracy so that purported "conspiracies" are presented as real conspiracies. Long story short, read WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)" as in Conspiracy Theory talk. Of course its a complete different statement. But I cited the book, the source and the article tells (again) the lie. The use of term "conspiracy theorist" was removed by me in any case not covered by a source. Well the terms conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist exist. But to call someone or a group with negative term "conspiracy theorist(s)", meant to discredit different perspectives, is always a personal opinion which should not be used here as long not coming from a cite clear to review. As discussed with DRN volunteer Bejnar.Spearmind (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Spearmind: I'm sorry, I read the date wrong on the last reverts in the article. I have unblocked you; you have my apologies. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually read edit summaries

When I removed Bohemian Grove from the See Also section, I said that it was "Covered in other articles linked to in the "See also" section". If you check List of conspiracy theories, you'll see that Bohemian Grove is mentioned there. It is obvious that the only reason you reverted me was as a petty temper tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And unless you are going to link to every single entry at List of conspiracy theories, it goes against WP:UNDUE to single out just that one. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? No it makes sense to have a list of conspiracy theories directly in the conspiracy theory article under "See also".Spearmind (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article titled List of conspiracy theories. If you were paying attention, you'd see that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im fully aware of it but it still makes sense having just a list of conspiracy theories here.Spearmind (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the problem of WP:DUE weight. If we compiled a comprehensive and balanced list of conspiracy theories, we would have an article, which we already do. To add additional theories there would give some WP:UNDUE weight, while also being needlessly redundant. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can have there a selection of just a few conspiracy theories, Bohemian Grove could be one of themSpearmind (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would need comprehensive tertiary sources to demonstrate that those concepts require WP:DUE weight. Most such sources would have a list of concepts that is of article length. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so its just about consensus. To add the names of a few theories wont hurt article length much.Spearmind (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now why is it you don't care about consensus when it doesn't go your way, but want to see what the consensus is going to be when policy doesn't go your way? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spearmind. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Your sock Tranceformb has been blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Helmut Diez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helmut Diez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Diez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]