User talk:Springee/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Springee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think you are wrong reverting me at Lee Chatfield. For a former politician from the religious right to be accused of sexual abuse (including rape) by his current sister-in-law is a major development in his life, very likely the last incident in his political career. It is being investigated by the Michigan State police with the cooperation of the Michigan House of Representatives. She was a minor when the alleged abuse began, and he was her school teacher. It's not going away. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, I don't think I'm wrong to remove that from the lead but we should discuss it on the article talk page. If nothing else, other editors might help sort things out. My personal feeling is this is an alleged crime that may amount to nothing. Until the charges stick or he is forced to resign due to these claims etc they should stay out of the article lead. Especially given the short length of the lead. If you start an article talk discussion I would be happy to make the same case there. Springee (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Springee, sorry for the delayed response of your notification, I'm quite busy off-wiki. On the issue, I think you've made your point to Soibangla, and so has VQuakr in their response to Soibangla. If there are further issues, I would suggest AE/ANI. On another note, I'm trying to stay out of the politics topic area indefinitely, just a heads-up to you. Commenting on editor behavior should be fine though. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your phone has such a one-track mind.[1] Dr. Freud | talk 12:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

Bishonen, To be fair, for many editors here my phone might have suggested the thing that would make them feel better :D (but I was kind of mortified I made that edit!). Springee (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you should use the word "bitch" there. Please remove that word as a completely unnecessary and unwarranted insult. You might have had issues with Hob, as I have, but calling him a bitch cannot be mistaken for anything but an insult, and therefore a personal attack. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A._C._SantacruzThat was a miscopied cut and paste. I've already removed it. Springee (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Springee, fair enough. I was really shocked to see the word as I do not remember you as the type of editor to swear so suddenly. Quite a relief to hear it was a misquote. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Springee, was checking through the Edit filter log like I normally do, and I stumbled upon an account a few days ago that triggered the filter New account suspicious activity. I try to keep an eye on those accounts... one of them being IMiss2010. I'm not sure that there is any violation they've made, but I did call them out on their excessive edits to their sandbox (they were indeed, excessive). Further, they were experimenting with fonts and what not, but perplexingly are choosing to focus exclusively on Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians—which I can't see any reason why a new editor would be exclusively fixated with that topic. Seems suspicious to me, wanted to have another set of eyes on their contribs. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat, I don't know what to think about it. I typically presume editors dip their toe in first, make a few edits to a topic they are interested in. I do wonder when I see them start by working on back end stuff. It's like seeing someone learn to drive by tearing the engine down first. Some of the editors who work WP:SPIs might be able to help more. You can keep an eye on their edits but I can't see anything they are doing that is harmful to Wikipedia at this time. Sorry, that's not really a clear answer but it is the best I have. Springee (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be in a pattern of wasting each others time. Perhaps we should give each other a little more WP:FAITH on talk pages in which we both seem to be involved. What do you say? DN (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I appreciate the outreach. Agreed and apologies that the comments came off that combatively. Springee (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I had a chance to read your last comment. I am concerned you are using Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. You have been around long enough to know the rules. I will seek administrative advice moving forward. DN (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I really don't get what in this post [2] was an issue. I mentioned bringing your concern here because, to be honest, I appreciated that you reached out when you, I presume, you felt things might turn from civil to not. I did not assume you felt I had, to this point, done anything uncivil and I didn't feel you had done anything uncivil either. We were disagreeing. It's easy to slip from disagreeing into incivility so I did feel that your comment here was actually a good way of saying, "hey, we disagree but we still shake hands and have a virtual beer". I think that is a good idea and I've been pleased in the past when someone who I was certain had to be a POV pusher etc was actually quite reasonable after we had a chance to understand what the other person was saying. I felt that was very conscientious of you and I appreciated it.

Given I thought we were on good footing were we could disagree with respect I admit I was taken aback by your followup suggesting battle[3]. I felt/feel like I was making a consistent point. Yes, some articles that are topic specific might mention the censure but as a general thing it has quickly faded away. When it first happened we had stories about the censure. What we are seeing now is articles that are about some other aspect of the Jan 6 topic mention the censure somewhere down in the article as background. We aren't seeing new, follow on results nor new stand alone stories about the significance or further impacts etc nor how this is changing the GOP. That is my point. I don't see how that is battleground or anything other than on topic commenting. I do get that my follow on where I specifically mention battle was off topic. I did that only because, as I just mentioned, taken aback that you mentioned battle on the talk page and I did feel compelled to defend what I said. I'm more than willing to remove all of the non-topical part if you are willing to do the same. Even if we don't agree, I would much rather a have a friendly user talk discussion with a virtual beer at the end. Springee (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(I will not read your response at this time) I kindly ask that you no longer try to contact or ping me. I will speak to an administrator and have them help resolve this issue for us. Please respect my request. DN (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I apologize for this last ping. What issue are you referring to? I think I'm missing something. Springee (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} DN can simply mute your pings if he no longer wishes to engage with you. Of course, disengaging makes it difficult to reach NPOV, but hey, as Lincoln once said, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time”. All DN has to do is adjust his User Prefs and mute your pings: Help:Notifications#Muting users Atsme 💬 📧 14:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am ok as far as interacting with you on article talk pages, but let's try our best to leave it at that. Also, I will no longer receive pings from you or TFD, so stick to article talk page sections where I am involved and ask other editors (besides TFD) or mods to ping me for immediate attention if something extremely important comes up. Have a peaceful day. DN (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Springee, was hoping you could take a look at Talk:Bruce Bostelman. I don't think I'm in the wrong with my input, but was hoping you could provide your own two-cents there. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you make a note to that effect on the talk page? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Eww. The article People's Party of Canada calls it far-right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not as far-left as Stalin, but I have IRL been called a "libtard." I'm also a retired nurse. I believe in the "right to refuse." So I cannot agree with mandating or compelling vaccines. Thanks for pointing out the fallacies of labelling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you but I need to make sure I'm clear on your view here [4], because I find it extremely odd. The editor said "For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him.". You believe that type of discourse is indicative of WP:AGF? I recall you actually said something similar [5], after I had previously responded to one of your replies on your TP [6]. I ask because I feel we are still in need of work in agreeing on the definition of AGF so that we can understand and work with each other in a more productive manner. If at all possible, please stick to simple yes or no, I understand there is a spectrum and context to it, but I have a difficult time sorting through some of the complexity of your answers. This is purely for my edification and future reference when it comes to understanding what to expect in engagements and discussions in which you are involved moving forward. You do not have to answer, but in fairness to you, this question is very much on my mind. DN (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I missed that. I was looking at the earlier part of the discussion where they were suggesting removing the content as UNDUE. Yes, we should not be making claims his enemies are editing the article since that would impugn Wiki editors. That said, I think you might be reading too much into what he said. I would take his comments as an attempt to illustrate a point rather than a claim that he actually believes that. Still, since it implies we have COI editors on the article it should be struck or otherwise clarified. My claim is different in that I'm stating some who are seeking to find fault with his work may be motivated by, for instance, a strong feeling that we need more gun control. In general setting out to prove someone wrong isn't the best way to produce quality research.

BTW, I didn't want to bother you about it but I did think your comment to SPECIFICO was quite kind [7]. I am sorry that I've caused you stress. Springee (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to answer. If I seem out of line I apologize, but part of my issue is that from my POV your responses tend to contradict the intent in what the end result seems to be in an almost predictable fashion, no offense. I realize I can be quite predictable as well, and I'm working on that, as well as acknowledging and listening to others when they point it out (hopefully with a soft touch). For example, I was hoping for a simple yes or no here, but somehow that option either did not appear on your radar or was possibly forgotten. Also, stating that "you missed that" can be perceived as a fairly ambiguous answer with multiple connotations that may lead into a stagnation of faith and productivity. However, if I wasn't clear or did not facilitate such a response for you to be able to oblige my request, then it automatically falls back onto me.

In the spirit of AGF, I would automatically lean towards the latter, except it seems to somehow end up like a clue to an often non-existent mystery. The effect of which resembles Gaslighting, and whether it is accidental or not, tends to have consequences such as my desire to limit engagement. A final example would be when I asked you to stop pinging me. I'm sure you may remember what happened next. BTW after that happened I was not intent, and am by no means intent, on going through any kind of arbitration or punitive recourse. I only wanted advice on how to handle it myself. Hopefully this helps shed a bit more light on where we are and how we got here. We may not seem to agree on content disputes, but more importantly I feel a need to prioritize and keep discussing how rules, tenets and policies should shape our future interactions. That should improve our ability to AGF IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extra sorry about my comments earlier. I made sure to apologize in the edit summary where I struck those comments. I was tired and cranky but that's no excuse. Give me some time to come back without being in Battlemode with you. I realize I may be solo on this view, and I am considering conceding in hopes of consensus. If I don't try to cover the bases with it, I will have a harder time moving on. Thanks for being patient. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. With respect to your vote here, did you intentionally indent it? Or did you mean to withdraw it? You may wish to return to it to reformat it in order to make your intention more clear by preserving the numbering or striking it as the case may be. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Springee,may I have your input on this edit,this event happened back in 2019 and made national and international news over the controversy. This edit is already/was technically before I made this edit on this article :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies&action=history

But now someone deleted it just now

In November 2019,while in a live interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews discussing the Impeachment hearings of Donald J. Trump,the sound of what many thought to be Flatulence was believed to be heard while Swalwell was speaking.^[1] Swalwell repeated denied the allegation,stating he didn't even hear the sound during the interview.^[2]The incident was widely reported and covered by Multiple foreign news channels, such as the British breakfast television News channel Good Morning Britain.^[3]The Viral incident was Coined "Fartgate" by many.MSNBC later released a statement saying the noise was actually a mug moving across a desk.However, many people dispute the network's explanation, claiming that Swalwell's speech paused for a moment during the noise, and he slightly raised his body as well.^[4]

I see this of note as it was covered by many sources and isn't an ongoing saga of events being covered by some gossip page etc. It meets the definition of a gate/scandal.

Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would delete it as well. Yes, it was embarrassing but it doesn't say anything about his character in particular or his policy ideas/positions. I suspect most who remember it don't recall the person's name, just that it happened to some politician on TV and it was funny. That is the sort of material I don't think belongs in any serious encyclopedia. Think of it this way, if digital data had to be paid for by the column inch like a traditional paper, would people have talked about this? I will note that I feel that some editors would be happy to include this if the BLP subject were on the other side of the political isle. In that case it would still be wrong. In my view this sort of content should be discouraged since as not encyclopedic and not a summary of the person in any meaningful way. Perhaps this is an area where it would be helpful if Wikipedia had a better guide to notability. It's easy to say, "X number of sources covered it thus we should too". But, as I said, if we are talking about a politician then we should stick to content that helps us understand his character, political history, motivations, positions etc. Random moments that happened to be caught on film and don't reflect on any of those core aspects of him as a politician should be excluded. Springee (talk)

Hello Springee, Would you say from your experience that this article is an opinion piece? From what I can see it seems very much so.However im looking to see what other people think A user is trying to use it for this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_UK

Here is the link:

https://theconversation.com/turning-point-uk-new-conservative-youth-group-doesnt-fit-traditional-understandings-of-the-far-right-111669

According to Wikipedia, the Coversation posts opinion pieces consistently, meaning those particular articles arent to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Idolator

Basedosaurus (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The way in which the source is being used to make the statement is extremely subjective and is an opinion,the article should instead say something along the lines of at the most "some see the organisation as being affiliated with the far-right" Basedosaurus (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This might be a good one to take to RSN and ask. When asking it would be good to make it clear that you are trying to understand and don't have a preference on the outcome. In general I don't quite see sources like the Conversation as Op-Ed. Part of that is because a classical OpEd can include views/opinions etc that the source's editorial board does not approve/accept. The Conversation strikes me more as an analysis source. Where I would be comfortable using it would depend on what fact/claim it is meant to support. At one extreme would be a disparaging claim about a person. In such a case I would want really strong sourcing. On the other hand, a claim that's rather mundane, Mr Smith grew up in Springfield, wouldn't need such robust sourcing.

BTW, just as an aside, since you are trying to edit in the area of politics I'm going to offer some advice/lessons I learned over time. None of this based on things you have done other than you are new and trying to learn the Wiki ropes in an area where people can be short with new editors.

First, is always focus on the edit, not the editor. It's very natural to ascribe intent to the edits of others. The problem is sometimes those ascribed intents are wrong. If you make a comment about the editor vs the edit that can quickly escalate into a civility problem. New editors frequently get bit in those cases. So as a hypothetical example, EditorX adds a disparaging claim to Senator Smith's BLP (I would use MrX as my generic editor but there actually is an editor with that name(!)). You look at EditorX's contribution page and it becomes clear they add negative content about many politicians who are all on the same side of the isle. If on the talk page you were to say, "EditorX is a POV pusher" or "EditorX only wants to insert negative things politicians on the East side of the isle." Both of those would be bad in my book. The problem is they suggest what EditorX's intentions are. Even worse, they suggest the intentions are against NPOV and meant to make those on the East look bad. However, it would be OK to say how that edit may be perceived by people reading the article. We have quite a few articles that read like a hit piece on the article subject. That may be the intent of the involved editors but they also might just be doing what they think is good work. Either way, criticizing what their edits do to the article is great, suggesting their motives are anything other than build a good article is going to be a problem.

Second, the edit warring red line for most articles is no more than 3 reverts in a 24hr period. It's best to self restrict to no more than one. Just to clarify, a revert is undoing someone else's recent change to the article. Recent isn't clearly defined by if people made the change in the last two weeks it's almost certainly going to be seen as recent. Note that it's 24hr, not just the same calendar day. People also frequently confuse what counts as a single revert. It is not the same content reverted more than once, it's any reverted content in the article. Consider this; you revert a change to paragraph 1. The other editor then makes a change to paragraph 3. You then revert that change as well. OK, that is two edits because someone else made edits between your edits. No consider a case where an editor makes changes to paragraphs 1 and 3 in back to back edits. You dislike both changes so you do two back to back reverts. That would count as just one revert since you could have done both changes as a single edit if you chose to. Still, the best way to avoid issues is keep your self to an unofficial 1 revert per day rule. Then even if you revert a second time, no one is going to be able to stick you with an edit warring claim.

Third, it's useful to read things like RSN and NPOVN discussions. You don't need to reply, just read and see what others consider to be important It will help you when you want to make sure your own arguments are solid.

Hope that long post helps Springee (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your advice,

The consensus is that Conversation can be used,however articles that are opinion pieces from the TheConversation should not be used.Meaning it should be looked at on a case by case basis-Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The ConversationThe claim is one that would be considered very extraordinary and I think it needs alot of really strong sourcing to back it up. Basedosaurus (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources are not about gun registration. They are about NSA surveillance. We need sources that relate this initiative to gun registration. It's also not clear why it is in the legislation section. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are correct. I corrected the scope of the collaboration as well as moved it to the litigation section. Springee (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your work in ensuring that contentious articles maintain a neutral point of view. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Howdy. I read over 'three times' the Twitter article & can't find any criticism of Twitter, mentioned in the article. Maybe you or another, can find it. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I haven't followed the Twitter article so I couldn't say. However, with all the recent Elon Musk stuff I'm really surprised that there wouldn't be at least some criticism. Springee (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW - I need to clarify my comment over at Jordan Peterson's talkpage. I do support the total inclusion of his remarks. I was merely pointing out the odds of his remarks being kept in the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears there's an editor over at the Peterson page, unilaterally shutting down any post(s), that the editor doesn't like. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I commend you for your hard work in trying to keep balance and neutrality here on Wikipedia regarding subjects that need a lot of tip toeing around. Keep up the good work (and may science and common sense win out!) Masterhatch (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to say 'hello' & that I'm still getting older :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GD! Hope all is going well. Springee (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

All is definitely well. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

What is RS and what is DUE material? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Maurice! wp:RS is reliable source and wp:DUE refers to a section of the wp:NPOV policy. I will admit, like many I cite "DUE" when the correct section is WP:PROPORTION. OK, so the second part means we shouldn't give minor things about a subject too much space (or any) in the article. Another one that might apply here is the wp:10YEAR test. Reliable source is an issue because Newsweek is considered questionable (see WP:NEWSWEEK). If we were using Newsweek for solid facts it may be OK. Honestly, I would trust it for the quote in question. However, I wouldn't use it to establish that this comment is really due for inclusion. Springee (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The second edit was a code correction; the first edit had an appropriate comment, stating that there was a correction about Gaetz’s assertion. The article as it exists is misleading with regards to a key fact about American-Israeli-Palestinian foreign policy. Ðrdak (T) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Drdak, I see my mistake. I've reverted my edit with a comment retracting my previous edit summary. However, that whole sentence/paragraph lacks citations so I added a cn tag. Springee (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Ðrdak (T) 20:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how'd you find yourself on the page Thomas Jefferson and Slavery? Loki (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to your talk page so I won't have to ping replies. Springee (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering why you would think the two Black Rifle Coffee Companylawsuits came from non reliable source? The source is United States district court 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhou1991 (talk • contribs)

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your work on the Donald C. Bolduc article! Grahaml35 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Toa Nidhiki05. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Appreciate your thoughtful engagement on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Springee!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)