Jump to content

User talk:Springee/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Ongoing issues with PragerU page case request declined

The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Charlie Kirk inciting the insurrection in a now-deleted Tweet. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tripping over Wikipedia

Hi Springee. There is something strange going on that, suddenly, a lot of the pages that I've worked on are being attacked and then out of nowhere a [COI] is levied by someone that I haven't even had issue with. I would not discredit the idea that there is some coordination happening. Any insights or recommendations would be much appreciated. QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP Talk Page

Not sure how you managed to warn him over 10 minutes before I did. I noticed their behavior on the PragerU page and then at RSN. I took a look at their contributions and I found the same tedious arguments repeated ad nauseam. They seriously need to learn to WP:DROPTHESTICK or else I would report them to ANI or somewhere else. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, yeah, this is getting a bit over the top. I'm working to try to help them understand this isn't meant to be personal [[1]] but I don't think it is working. Springee (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee, And now they started yet another loquacious thread @ WP:VPP?!?! Springee, this is ridiculous. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Andy Biggs

What an innocent looking IP who magically found their way to the talk page of some obscure congressman. And, who magically decided to disagree with your argument and "support" the other fellow. I'm sure this IP doesn't belong to anyone in that talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool ping

Thank you for the invitation at Pausing RFC to the prior RFC participants, but... I have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

CPAC

Would you say this is canvassing or not? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I don't think so. It looks like a new user frustrated with the system but I don't think canvasing applies. Both editors are involved and the new editor is asking the experienced editor what can be done. Springee (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It seemed to me like he was asking an extended confirmed editor to edit on his behalf (by reverting your revert). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Since all were involved I don't see this as a canvasing violation. Springee (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'll AGF and say that wasn't his intention. But the "questioning your motives" stuff is a no-go. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, do you mind if I tweak your proposed question a bit? From, "should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" to "should the article mention that some Twitter users noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Normally I would say yes but in this case is this still just Twitter users? They were the origin but it appears that a reasonable number of news stories have talk about it so I don't think it would be reasonable to just say Twitter. Springee (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, That's the thing. Sources have picked up the story, but the sources are not the ones making the observation. They attribute the observation to Twitter users:
  • Reuters: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune..."
  • US News: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune.."
  • Snopes: "Internet sleuths noticed the stage at the conservative gathering resembled a symbol that has been used by hate groups...Eagle-eyed social media users claimed that the stage where Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Jr., and others made speeches looked eerily like a Nazi or white supremacist symbol."
  • The Independent: "Hyatt Hotels said they had "deep concerns" after Twitter users compared the stage design of the Conservative Political Action Conference to a Norse rune used by Nazis during the Second World War."
  • Business Insider: "Twitter users noted the design of a stage at CPAC closely resembles a symbol used on Nazi uniforms."
  • The Guardian: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune, also known as an odal rune," Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I think you convinced me but that might be a better defence vs setting if the question. Stating that the high quality sources are reporting on the Twitter noise vs making the claim themselves is a good point. Springee (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I may add this to the discussion at the bottom of the RfC. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, it's probably best to just let the discussion play out and not reply to everything Radio says. I admit I'm often bad and knowing when to just let things roll. Clearly you aren't going to sway some editors so no reason to argue with them. Editors who are undecided are likely to just read the first few posts but not level after level of back and forth. It just opens you up for a bludgeoning ANI. It certainly is easier to preach this vs practice it but that's my suggestion. Springee (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You are quite right, Springee. My last comment was gonna be my last. I know that there are plenty of editors itching to start an ANI thread on me. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, lol Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I saw a lot of articles said the same thing. Regardless of any ill will directed at Design Foundry, I think this confirms my original belief that this was unintentional and that most people wouldn't have recognized this had it not been pointed out. This should put to rest any argument that this was an intentional dog whistle (which is similar to a reason for inclusion from the survey). Springee (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, Since it's been a week since the last !vote, I think we should post the CPAC RfC on WP:ANC. Closers usually take a while, so it's better to post it now rather than later. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Dr.Swag Lord, I would just leave it open. The typical RfC is 1 month and I think we are inside that. This isn't a SNOW case. I do think its surprising how different the Odal rune article results have been vs the CPAC ones. The Odal article is currently over 2:1 in favor of inclusion though I am suspicious of the motives of a few of those who voted. Still, the contrast is interesting. I do wonder how many of the votes on CPAC would change in the other RfC. Springee (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee, Ok sounds good. There hasn't been any sustained coverage of the stage (like I predicted) so I think the argument for inclusion is even weaker now. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Springee It looks like the RfC template was just removed by the bot. I would say there's at least a rough consensus for exclusion. There's definitely no consensus for inclusion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I requested a formal close at WP:ANC. You can find that request here. There's normally a high back log at ANC, so I think it would take at least a week before we get a close. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the RfC had been recently been closed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

A few months back you tried to encourage my to cool it down in a heated content dispute. You were right, but I blew it off. Just wanted to say I actually now appreciate what you were trying to do and I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I admire how you've been handling editorial disputes on this site and hope you keep up the good work. Best, Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, thanks I appreciate that! Springee (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard#Yahoo!_News_article_for_PragerU pings

Hi Springee. Just FYI, Hipal is pinged in the second paragraph, so you might consider removing your comment for redundancy reasons and to save space for the ensuing discussion. Not a big deal either way. Looking forward to resolving this issue. Hope you're doing well! Jlevi (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

New user

I wouldn't take it to ANI, I would take it to AE, since it comes under discretionary sanctions for post-1992 politics and the editor has been warned. TFD (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it on topic

Just an observation: in topic areas where people often become dismissive, combative, or take discussion in counter-productive directions, I appreciate that you seem to make an effort to stay on topic and be civil. It's helpful, even if we disagree on a few things. That's all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, thanks for that comment. I try and comments like yours make it easier. Springee (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Refactoring of Talk:PragerU discussion

Heya Springee. Hope you're okay with this refactor I did. That discussion was becoming quite long, and the RS/DUE question on Y!N/Athelea/the individual article seems separate from how to integrate that detail once if consensus has emerged for inclusion. To improve flow of discussion and avoid tangles, I think this refactor makes sense. Given that your responses include statements about both, I recognize that this might be tricky for you. Depending on your preferences, feel free to: 1) leave as is, 2) refactor your own responses and add those responding to the DUE/RS question to the earlier subsection, or 3) just revert my refactor. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Jlevi, not a problem. I understand what you are trying to do and it makes sense. Springee (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TC page

Hi Springee, just want you to know that I edited a comment on the Tucker talk page that you responded to previously, because it might have been unclear earlier. Letting you know here so you aren't taken by surprise. Llll5032 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Springee, I just wanted to say, I was fully convinced after reading your thorough, logical, and civil comments on Talk:Andy Ngo. Your dedicated commitment toward improving the neutrality of WP is greatly appreciated. Great work! Thomas Meng (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Integrity
Awarded for integrity in the process of debating and discussing questions surrounding the CPAC stage shape and the subsequent RfC, and for accepting the consensus with good grace. With respect, *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

–== Well there you go ==

There is a list of at least one thing on which we are in complete agreement :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, how do we expand that list as well as how do we reduce the amount of blow by blow crap in articles? I think you and others are right that if we cut down on so much of that stuff the number of content disputes would drop as well. Springee (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Springee, good question. How about coming up with a list of the top 10 hot button BLPs that we think are overwhelmed with cruft? I'd suggest Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one. Also Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but you have to take on the fanbois there. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I haven't even tried to look at the Assange page. It would be good to come up with a list that has blue and red heros/villans. BTW, I'm just as happy to apply my standards to blue villain pages of you have any suggested problem pages. I don't like to see any pages look like we are vilifying. So how do we decide what doesn't pass the test on any of these pages? Springee (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson Page

Hi Springee, I was wondering if you had a quick synopsis of the long conversation that is going on over there. I stumbled on it because the IP is active on a page I monitor and has, in a lot of ways, replicated that discussion on several pages. I think he wants it to be a WP:FORUM rather than constructive editing. Any insight you could offer would be helpful. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347, to be honest I'm not entirely sure what the IP editor is arguing and I agree with your concerns. I've posted to the IP's talk page. Looking at their range of IP addresses it looks like other editors have raised concerns in the past. My best understanding of the current two discussions is the IP editor (and some named editors) want to include content that draws a line between Peterson and fascist ideas. The other issue is inclusion of a quote (from an op-ed I think) that says people who say Peterson is a conservative are wrong. I'm not sure any of this should be in the article since it's all rather subjective. Springee (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, i would agree with you that we should be wary of any Opinion articles, especially those that are an individual opinion along relatively weak logical lines. Squatch347 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Squatch347, you might have a look at this [[2]]. I've looked as some of the other involved articles and I do feel the editor has a borderline case of RGW and BATTLEGROUND. Springee (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow, I had missed that one. What is the remedy for something like this? I rarely get involved in these kinds of larger disputes (aside from a sockpuppet and one mediation). It would be nice if this stopped polluting my watchlist. Squatch347 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Squatch347, ANI is the best I can think of. I've watched their actions at the Carano page and it does look like they are trying to push a POV and many of their comments are needlessly antagonistic. Springee (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, the POV pushing is definitely consistent, and the antagonism is pretty universal. I know myself and probably another editor on sowells page would probably support ANI actions. Squatch347 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I would support a warning though the exact phrasing needs to be worked out. I don't think they have crossed the line into topic ban territory. Springee (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Another editor has stepped in on one of the discussions. I'm hopeful this will help the IP overcome the learning curve. Squatch347 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the other editor started an ANI discussion. In case you'd like to weigh in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24 Squatch347 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement in Wiki voice

Springee, I was surprised to see this edit which describes a group of people "surrounding" Strickland in Wiki voice, even though that claim came from a quoted tweet by Ngo within the source. You're usually quite attentive about attributing this type of claim, particularly when it comes from a questionable person in a questionable source, so you should be well aware of why it would be necessary in this case. Please try to be more careful in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I appreciate your comment about care regarding attributed claims. I would be happy to make that attributed. I basically copied the text of the Don't Shoot Portland article. Springee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That's where the "please be more careful" piece comes in. Wouldn't you agree that it would have been a good idea to check the source to make sure it actually supported what was being said before copying it over? –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Understood. I appreciate the good faith comment. Note that I added The Hill as an attributed statement to the DSP article. I think the content is not DUE for the Ngo article at this point. Springee (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna step away for a few days. Got alot going on.

When I come back, I look forward to taking the AANES entry up to Good Article status. Outside of professional Kurdologists (I actually know the two leading authorities on Kurds from the West... providing the one hasn't recently karked it on us!), and those currently on the ground now with access to physical Ottoman, French, and Ba'athist documents, I reckon I'd be right up there among the top dozen or so people in the English-speaking world who have all the possible resources on this (and other related articles). Out-of-print books that are very hard to find... It might even come to the point where I'll need to translate some documents myself! Plus I have access to JSTOR, etc. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Expanding the awareness

Hi Springee, would you mind adding "covid" to the DS awareness notice at the top of your talk page? In return, I won't add my usual blue notice! 😉 All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

your accusation

This, in suggesting "sock", is pretty unbecoming. Got any particular reason for posing that, even as a question? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, the behavior is consistent with a sock, IP with no other edits, copied the edit summary of another editor. Springee (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Pages777

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pages777. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for pointing out my comment that was a second vote. That RfC got so long I completely forgot I voted in the beginning! Appreciate you pointing it out. ––FormalDude(talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo "journalist"

I was wondering if you'd be interested in challenging the recent RfC close regarding inclusion of "journalist" in the lead at Andy Ngo. I know you're an advocate for omitting contentious content from BLPs when there's no consensus, and the conclusion "Now, there is no consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Nor, however, is there a consensus to obliviate that term from the lead. The status quo should be maintained." seems to go against that. Perhaps we could come up with something together to bring to the closer? –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave, I would generally take the outcome of this RfC to say no consensus to change the article text or no consensus to change the prior RfC. However, I'm open to discussing your concerns. This does present an interesting case. Does this new RfC mean there is no longer a consensus about the content (ie old consensus is replaced with a new no-consensus) or does it simply mean we don't have a consensus to overturn the old consensus. This would be potentially precedent setting. Consider a case where a RfC from a few years back found consensus to put content in an article lead. Now a new RfC comes along and the result is no-consensus. Does that mean the content no longer has consensus or just that there is no consensus to change? Since this was a non-admin close I think you could start with objecting and requesting an admin close. Springee (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool article

I have been reverted by both Grayfell and NorthBySouthBaranof just this morning, and both provided false reasonings for doing so. Does anyone spend two minutes making sure they are correct before undoing others' work anymore? Am I just old fashioned? Matza Pizza (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Matza Pizza, see my post on your talk page. Springee (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to explain things to me.
Matza Pizza (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Change to Candance Owens

Hi Springee. Regarding your recent revert of my edit at [3]. I think the edit is relevant, as it shows her attitude to the covid response. I can see your point about the wording, so how about something like this:

In October 2021, Owens called for the "US to invade Australia to free people from 'tyranny'" (of the government COVID-19 response).[1] Australian's response was negative of the comments,[2] with the majority of Australian's very happy with their Government's handling of the pandemic.[3]

Owen's wording though is just quoted, and I don't think it is rhetorical, given the context, and other statements, she, other Fox News presenters, and Ted Cruz have made about Australia. Owen's statement, as reported, was "the U.S. military should invade Australia because it has turned into a “police state,” comparing the country’s government to the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.", which is pretty strong. This op-ed piece gives some useful perspective. [4]. The refs are strong, too - news.com.au is one of Australia's prime news sources, time.com obviously strong, and the Lowy Institute very well regarded for research.

It is recent, but I don't agree that it's WP:UNDUE (only two short sentences) or subject to WP:RECENT to be not included (directly relevant to paragraphs above).

Let me know your comments with the revised wording. peterl (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peterl:, the comment appears to have been a flippant comment made by Owens rather than any sort of serious proposal. If this were presented as evidence that Owens uses flippant rhetoric to get the attention of others I think this would be a good example. Presenting only the statement without context and without showing that it has some sort of higher level significance in an article that is meant to summarize Owens it, in my view, a violation of DUE (or more truthfully WP:BALASP). All that said, the best place to discuss this is on the article talk page. Even though I don't think it so, my take may be wrong. Getting more views can be helpful and, when things work best, sometimes a 3rd party editor can help find a compromise edit. Springee (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if this content had been discussed previously, and indeed it has! I believe it's a BLP violation without proper context(aka Owens was joking). This content is being re-added(as well as my talk page discussion on the matter being deleted). Maybe have a look if you get the chance. SmolBrane (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've restored your comments. I would assume it was accidental. Personally I think the mention of her joke is Undue since it isn't clear why this would be included. Is it meant to show how she is using hyperbole? Is it meant to suggest she is actually advocating for this? Sadly another example of quote farming. Springee (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Great thanks. Whether it's DUE or not isn't even my primary concern, it's that wikivoice needs to be pretty clear on the whole Invading Australia/Joking about Invading Australia thing. SmolBrane (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha unrest shooting

When the mod is biased af, there's no point in trying to change the article anymore. Waste of our time. so sad when even wikipedia is stuffed with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N432138 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

N432138, it's east to assume such things but, true or not, it's best to assume good faith just in case. At least a few times when, in my head, I had already given up on good faith I ended up surprised when the other editor did something that showed they were in fact acting in good faith. Moments like that convinced me I'm better off not saying something snarky in case this is that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 case where my instinct was wrong. Beyond that, while it short term can feel good to call someone on their BS, it's never going to convince them and might end up coming back to haunt. Anyway, the argument that RSs talking about Rittenhouse because of this shooting have mentioned these facts isn't without some basis in policy. However, as editors we can argue about the DUE weight of the volumes of information that were found. It looks like consensus is against inclusion so I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Dennis Prager discussion

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss your opinion here, away from some of the less civil discussion on the page. I personally haven't been around the political wiki enough to see problems of people adding random controversial quotes to pages of people they don't like. I wanted to point out the page Political positions of Donald Trump, it uses his policy decisions and articles on his certain views to form his political positions. But sometimes it uses quotes, likely in areas that garner less attention, hence fewer articles to give their interpretation of what the quotes mean. An example would be the California drought; they added a few quotes - establishing that one of those was incorrect - then gave some context behind what he was commenting on. It seems that the lack of attention given to this opinion forced them to use a style closer to the one used on Prager's page (enough attention to establish notability, but not enough to expand on the quotes' meaning). Do you think that it's still inappropriate on Trump's page? In terms of the climate change quotes used on Prager's page I think it should stay. Using some OR we can see that the effect of climate change is in fact not idiotic or irrational when consider its impact on hunger and general health, rising sea levels and more intense weather events[4]. We can also see that he misrepresents the science when he says that concern about the climate crisis is in anyway fear of extinction of the biosphere, when in fact none of the science argues for extinction. It argues for biodiversity losses.[5][6][7] An extinction of the biosphere entails all living things dead, I have only heard about such a thing proposed in things like when the sun swallows the earth in roughly 5 billion years As we can see, despite not denying climate change, his opinions on the impacts of climate change or almost equivocal to denial of climate change. It's essentially like moving the goalposts, first it was that climate change was not real, now it's that it will not have any impact. The stated claims are just as wrong as denial of climate change in my opinion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, thank you for reaching out. I've frequently found that some of the best wiki output comes when people step aside and discuss things off line (well off article pages). It doesn't always work but I agree it's far better than acrimony on the talk page.
I've almost entirely avoided any Trump articles. In part I don't find him that interesting and in large part I think it's just too sensitive and ugly. In the case of Trump I would think/hope there is enough legitimate analysis of his actions and policies he actually supported as well as analysis of his methods for getting things done so that we can find RSs that actually talk about not just what he says but what he supports in action and policy as well as how we tried to get people to go along with his objectives. That last one leaves a lot of room for discussion of his... can we euphemistically call it colorful rhetorical methods?
Prager is harder because we don't have as many sources to help us sort out the substance from the noise. It also makes it harder to decide which parts of his statements are meant to be the message vs the rhetoric. One of the editor's posted a comment regarding Prager's concerns around 2 weeks into the general shutdown in the US (mid March 2020). It does look like Prager was wrong regarding how many people would die from the illness (the US toll was small at the time). However, it also looks like Prager's concern about the impact of the protective measures also proved to have foundation [8]. Personally I think many of these cases aren't the black and white issues that often are presented here. Instead they are far more likely to be gray. However, many of our articles present things often as white or beyond black. It would be nice if the stories about these people were better at presenting these details. Anyway, I appreciate you reaching out and would be happy to discuss things further or give you my take on some other pages even if I won't edit them (I will try to avoid basically all Trump, and Biden specific pages). Springee (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah after reading through your arguments on the talk page I was understanding your concern. I can definitely see how easy it would be to fall into the trap of writing down everything controversial someone says, just because you think they are a bad person. Also in this day of intense media scrutiny it seems easier than ever to paint a person a certain way. Well... happy editing. (not sure how people sign off on wiki) Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/conservative-host-candace-owens-calls-for-us-to-invade-australia-to-free-people-from-tyranny/news-story/9a487acac0dbafefaa0945d2aa7284cc
  2. ^ https://time.com/6109361/australia-covid-vaccine-mandate-owens-cruz/
  3. ^ https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/global-responses-to-covid-19/
  4. ^ "What does climate change have to do with bushfires?".
    "Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change".
Indeed. Thanks for the catch! Was on a bit of a tear earlier with reverting vandalism. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 03:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive by

It doesn't belong in the Maytag...

In response to your last post...Atsme 💬 📧 14:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Finally straightened out that situation. Took too long, but here we are. Thank you for all your help. Matza Pizza (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Help

Would you please provide the excellent advice you gave here to Ivan VA? His comment here shows he needs your help to understand this business about Greenwald and other SPS. "Credentials" don't mean anything here. Heck, we have even indeffed a Nobel Prize laureate, and he presumably might have known his subject better than anyone else on earth at one time. Talk about credentials! They mean nothing here without RS. People change, sources change, and consensus changes. -- Valjean (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I gave it a shot and I appreciate the shout out. Don't eat any fermenting meat this weekend! Springee (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee/Archive_4&oldid=1157576742"