User talk:Springee

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

Archives

2014 ‒ 2017 2018 ‒ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ...

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

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

My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic” is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DN. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. Springee (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As you did at Talk:Andy Ngo[5] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Wikipedia says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. Springee (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPath^talk 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPath^talk 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.

In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recall there being an essay on this. It isn't wp:OTHER but it might have been similar. Basically the idea is that because Wikipedia doesn't have a central editor we shouldn't presume that any particular article should be seen as the standard for how another article should be presented. What this could indicate is that both articles need fixing. Springee (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... Polygnotus (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Nike article in general but I would presume the offshore labor issues would be the primary controversy. Springee (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sorry Fenharrow, I've been offline for a few days. I think your POV is quite reasonable. An issue with Wikipedia, and something we just need to work around, is that numbers are often more important that what we feel is the best argument. That isn't to say that quality of argument means nothing but absent some sort of agreed mediator we often are stuck with numbers on the talk page. I've seen cases where the small talk page consensus (say 3 vs 1) becomes a clear consensus in favor of the "1" after a RfC. Other times we are stuck trying to realize where the limits are (it seems getting consensus to move this article isn't happening right now). So the options are trying to make a case at a notice board where more uninvolved editors can weigh in, or work within the current article structure to try to fix things as much as possible. It can be frustrating and if you need to, take a break or just post agreements with the editors with whom you do agree. Remember that the other side might be feeling the same way and we should try to keep all the replies about the issues at hand. BTW, I do think it's reasonable to say how a new bit of text might be viewed by a reader. "A reader is likely to view that as biased because..." For what it's worth, a lot of changes have been made to the article of late but I'm not sure I've seen a true consensus for many of them, especially the removal of "political term" from the opening of the lead. Springee (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It's great to hear from you, Springee! Ideally, I would start an RM seeking "Private Sale Exemption" (PSE), but has that ship sailed already? Interestingly, some editors who opposed the previous RMs seem to agree that PSE and GSL are "largely synonymous". Allowing the article to remain as GSL feels like a disservice to anyone on Wikipedia seeking to learn about the subject. I would like to challenge the page title. When do you think would be a suitable time to do that? Alternatively, merging GSL with "Gun Shows in the United States" also seems to work. Please share your thoughts! Fenharrow (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I am required to assume good faith, but I'm concerned with the timing in which you decided to to remove Southern Strategy from the history section on the WP:NAVBOX at Template:Conservatism US.

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

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

Best of luck to you both.

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

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users 4 Oversighters 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

I appreciate you trying to help, but minds appear to be set. There's not really been any response to my attempts to make my case, so it's probably wasting your time, unfortunately. Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and advice. Unfortunately, attitudes like yours seem to be fatally outnumbered on the English Wikipedia at this point. Being indefinitely banned from discussing the politics of my own country is absurd and the final straw for me after that first ridiculous sockpuppetry block. I have no interest in contributing to a project that has allowed its administrative culture to deteriorate to this level.

Good luck out there. Happy editing. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Request for review of RfC closure and un-closure. guninvalid (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

......with this edit? [6]

He indicates you do. Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this [7]. I wouldn't view them as the same as I think TN's behavior was minor at worst while the other has a long history of failing to engage in good faith when challenged. However, I presume, since they are often on the majority side in many of the political debates their actions aren't seen as going against the stream thus more latitude is given. Springee (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you that those two situations are not comparable.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm likely headed for getting banned. It was a nice run of almost 20 years on this site. Thank you for being the sole person to stand up and not jump on the bandwagon. I hope this type of culture on the internet can be improved in the future. I hope you have a great day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Raladic (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He comes across on his talk page as an argumentative, know-nothing loser. I can see why a site like Wikipedia wants to keep nameless, unaccountable editors from citing primary sources too freely, but I do not think we have that luxury when writing about politics. @Simonm223 has taken it upon himself to defend editors who have undone my contributions to our article on Zohran Mamdani, all for vague and contradictory reasons.

Note that I mistake Mamdani's pledge for rent stabilisation with rent control, and cutting my additions for this reason would have made sense. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a relatively new editor so I will offer a suggestion. First, please don't edit war. I get that it's frustrating to think you have improved an article only to have someone revert the changes. However, it's almost never a good idea to quickly revert the reversion. Instead, please use the talk page. Sometimes no consensus will result but other times the discussion results in something better due to the combined efforts. Second, please don't personally attack editors or suggest motives other than good faith intent to improve articles. Even in really contentious areas like topics around the middle east opposing editors can both honestly think they are improving an article. Personal attacks, dismissive tone etc tends to make it harder, not easier to fix these issues. Don't worry about this too much. If you can make a good case on the talk page, people may listen. Springee (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you went to school, did other children punch you in the head and tell the teacher you started fights? Giving criticism without the customary "here's what I would do instead" does not foster a culture of learning and drives away good, hard-working, deserving people. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Many long term editors have seen so many new editors make POV edits and after a while there is a risk of biting the new guy. Simon gave you good advice, go to the talk page. Simon's use of the edit warring template is pretty standard and they didn't discount the content you were trying to post. Springee (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, but three editors besides Simon have reverted my edits. I have reached out to two of them on their talk pages, and they have not replied yet. I take offense first to Simon declaring an edit war on an article that they admit they have no interest in and taking it upon themselves to mediate it; and second, to not even give the busy people who disagreed with me a chance to speak up for themselves.

Wikipedia may have a tame, civilised culture for an Internet forum, but if I were king, we would have this conversation on a mailing list and stand by our real names and personal e-mail addresses. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested in the edit/topic I would suggest starting a talk page discussion and be sure to focus on the content. Don't get hung up on the reverts. Make a case why you think the material should be in the article and listen the replies. Sometimes the issue is a source problem. Other times it could be the material doesn't work well in the article. If people give you links to policies or guidelines, read them. This doesn't mean you will convince them but it does mean you will learn how things work which makes it more likely you will succeed with edits in the future. Finally, it's not uncommon for editors to take action if they see an issue even on an article they don't normally edit. Springee (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank makes a lot more sense. Thank you for saving my veal hide today. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my earlier comment I want to make it clear that "Don't worry about this too much." is in reference to editors reverting your comment and another editor posting on your talk page. You, Shushi, are new and sometimes it's not obvious that an edit that is reverted doesn't mean there is no common ground. Do take the part about no personal attacks seriously. Editors who have made lots of solid contributions to Wikipedia have been shown the door for such comments. Springee (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushimnotrealstooge, I would heavily encourage you to take onboard Springee's advice. Consider this your only warning about calling other editors "argumentative, know-nothing loser". If I see it again you will be the subject of a noticeboard discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Springee and I often disagree on most things we've been able to navigate those disagreements within the framework of Wikipedia for a couple of decades now. And if you are going to talk about a person behind their backs please don't tag rhem. LOL

I don't have a strong personal stake in the New York mayoral election but I do have strong views on reliable sourcing in articles relating to living people. We should not be sourcing policy platform statements of living politicians to the websites of their competitors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 in fairness I think your comment should be directed at shushi. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That dang nesting thing :D Springee (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Pre-coffee notif stuff. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again — what right do you have to oversee editors working on a Wikipedia article that you do not even have a personal interest in? I live in New York. Copying over what friendly papers say about politicians without putting it a broader context is lying by omission at best and defamatory and criminal at worst.

Of course, I won't touch the Mamdani article again because I'd still like to work on this website, but I have strong views too. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate you need to tone it down. I don't care if you're new or not, this isn't twitter. TarnishedPath^talk 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not tagging the people you are talking about, Shush, you might want to bear in mind that most user talk pages have acquired watchers. Springee has 107 people watching. I forget why I am one of them, but here I am. So your private word could potentially be read by a lot of people. We do give latitude to new editors, and this all seems pretty amicable, but do take it as a learning experience. All of Wikipedia is a public space, and it really is better not to air grievances about editors. At all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]