User talk:Springee

Comment by Anmccaff

I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself.Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made enough changes that I'd appreciate an extra set of eyeballs taking a look at 'em, if your time allows.Anmccaff (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Engagement with Streetcar conspiracy article

Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:

• It is much easier to make many small changes than one big one.
• It allows you to test your ideas, while getting feedback and building trust with other contributors.
• It is much more likely to be successful - do remember that major changes can be made with small steps.
• and... very importantly, it will avoid you getting sucked into conflicts that Anmccaff, who has now reappeared, and who has created discord independently on two separate WP articles recently with different people (see Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: and Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston).

I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Spring

Are you looking for the old content of a redirect just click on history of the article. You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/wiki/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live?Springee (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater

Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Addressing NPOV problems with MJ article

I admire your patience at The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks . I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.

I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?

I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).

NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, not at all! Actually I welcome the discussion. I'm rather frustrated that it appears that some editors see this as, "you don't like the article thus you want to whitewash _____". Or at least that is how it feels. I am happy to discuss the topic and would like to come up with a constructive way to address it (that can include adding the complaints that MJ lists). I think that generically stating that MJ said something negative about the organizations isn't meaningful. If we work together on the meaningful part of the content then I think we get a better article overall. I think we will have to customize each entry of course. Would you make the first suggestions? Springee (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do like to discuss policies first, but most people prefer to focus on specifics (sources, proposed content, etc). Can I assume from what you've written so far that you'd rather go straight to the specifics? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I really don't mind discussing policies. I think it can be quite helpful. In part because there are a lot and I certainly don't have all of them committed to memory. Sometimes when you read an entry it just feels wrong but you can't always find the correct policy if you don't know all the ropes. In this case I think the MJ entry is being used to demonize rather than inform. As this is an encyclopedic article I think we should lean heavily way from editorial opinion even when that opinion comes from sources that provide reliable content. What is much harder if figuring out the correct way to cast that in Wiki guidelines. It's even harder when the first assumption of others is that you are trying to suppress information vs trying to make the article more fact based Springee (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So concerning the significance of the topics brought up in the MJ article: How do we resolve this? As I've been saying, a combination of improving the sourcing (or perhaps just demonstrating the strength of the sourcing, which is what editors have been focusing on doing), and ensuring that the most important points from the source(s) are being emphasized (which editors have also been doing to various degrees). Do you think these two approaches in combination are a general solution to NPOV/UNDUE problems and that their application would resolve this specific dispute? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. Part of what myself and several other editors felt was problematic was citing the MJ opinion/statement as something that should be noted within the consideration of WP:UNDUE. Here we have an article that is about an organization that is likely involved in many things, one being information about climate change. Criticism of their climate change positions would be reasonable. The more I read the MJ article the less I like it. The language is that of someone who is trying to demonize rather than inform. I don't think that makes for a good encyclopedic source. A Google search for the article name turns up one reference in a university press book (that's good) but I can't find how it is actually discussed in the text (that's bad). Other than pages on the MJ site the rest seems to be blogs and forums. Given that this list was published in 2009 I would say that basically no one else has picked it up as significant. The opening sentence of the page on the Heartland Inst starts with, "The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers." They did mention some information but it was very vague. "Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. " I'm not sure how we could go about checking that fact or many of the others in that section. Given the difficulty in verifying the claims MJ is making and the obviously disdainful view of the reporter towards his subject I think we should look for other sources. I think it would be best to avoid a rating system. Even stating that they are "one of the worst" is still subjective. Interestingly the MJ article doesn't give any actual examples of thing THI has advocated that MJ things are factually incorrect. Given that the MJ article says they are spreading disinformation I would hope they could provide an example.

However, articles such as this one by CNN [[1]] came up when I searched for "the heartland institute climate change". I think the tone of the CNN article is more to the point. It seems quite reasonable to report that THI has advocated for ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers on the topic of climate change. I'm sure we can find other similar articles. These avoid reporting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice but do offer the source information that MJ used to create their own opinions on the subject. Would such an entry work for you? Can we focus on examples where they were proven wrong?

BTW, how do you feel about the other references that are in the same paragraph as the MJ entry (well where the MJ article was placed)? The NYT's view seems like someone has taken a statement made in passing as part of a bigger article and presented it as if it were the focal point of the article. It feels like it's overselling the NYT's actual statement. Clearly "The Economist" reference is sound and gets the point across. I think ones like that should stay Springee (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've not looked closely at the article and its references.

You're not answering my general question about the approach, so let's try specifics:

I think this demonstrates significance of the list, "Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group." Do you agree that this shows MJs list is significant? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does add to the significance of the list. I think I was trying to do the same thing but the search term I used above didn't return much. Note that I was searching for THI, not FWs. That said, the Atlantic article does not indulge in the name calling that was part of the MJ article. I think, given that we are writing in an encyclopedic voice we should not use the dirty dozen label but take The Atlantic's lead in how the list is referenced. Do you have other reference examples? What about a reference like "[organization] was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." That removes the value laden label. That said, given the language of the MJ article I think it's hard to take it seriously as a factual source. Bias is one thing, vitriol and seething with contempt should always give us pause with regard to using it as a reliable source vs an opinion, especially when MJ is just saying the same thing we can get from other sources... including in this case, THI's own web site. Springee (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a follow up on my thoughts above, I think the "dirty dozen" or even similar label would be a violation of WP:LABEL. It tells us that we should avoid using value laden labels. Yes, in this case we would be quoting MJ but we can just as easily say that MJ singled this organization out without using their label. In this case even if we agree the list is notable, the label does not appear to be. Quoting the label is a way for an editor to claim they aren't applying the label while still applying the label. In this case it infers a value judgment without conveying facts. I think/hope we are in agreement there. Springee (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is the best reference I've found.

Yes, MJs presentation is over the top, plus the THI article already includes a great deal about climate change denial.

"[organization] was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." Seems very hard to argue against. I think we're ready to summarize at the article talk page. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so. Do you think this statement would work for the other pages that reference the same article (assuming no obvious reasons to deviate)? Would you like to propose it or should I? Also, thank you for taking the initiative on this discussion. Springee (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and take it to THI. Hopefuly, it will be easier with additional articles, but we'll have to look at the relevant content in each. THI is easy because there's already so much on the topic. FreedomWorks seems to be the other extreme. I've barely glanced at the other articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And it was promptly removed... Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article? Springee (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on the Monckton talk page

Hello,

I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors. 1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy, see here. 2. Your edit here moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".

If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right about my sig Peter, I already moved my sig back to its correct place though. Thanks for noticing! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Easy as Pie!... 3.1415926535897932 AnønʘmøưṨ 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No link for your rfc request

There is no link provided for your rfc request on the admin board which you posted (only red link): ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Could you fix it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, Fixed! Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Response

Yes, it's important to be measured, careful and respectful -- and I'm trying to see where this is going to fall out.

Seams reasonable. As a point of reference, HughD and I don't have a good editorial relationship and I believe he came to the Pinto article because I was working on it.Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD Wikihounding

HughD, you previously accused me of wiki-hounding (here for example [2] and in this complaint [3]). You asked that I not be allowed to follow you around and you cited Callanecc as "an admin" asking me to stop. Since March 2nd you have followed me to the [Ford Pinto] topic, a topic I've been involved with for some time. You have, until earlier this month, no history of editing automotive topics. Your behavior on that topic has resulted in a page lock and frustration among other editors Greglocock in particular. You have since followed me to the Chrysler article and directly reverted one of my edits (my edit, [4]: your reversion [5]). This reversion was made without talk page comment. Given your claims of wikihounding it is now clear you are trying to wikihound me. I would suggest you follow Fyddlestix's advice[6], avoid each other. Following me to topics I've edited certainly is NOT avoiding. If this continues to other articles I will open an ANI. Springee (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content, WP:FOC; thank you. Regarding your recent section blanking of the "Product recalls" section from our article Chrysler, is it your position that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, this is my talk page and the subject of this discussion is your disruptive editing and following me to various automotive articles. If you disagree with the Chrysler edit perhaps you should join the talk page discussion where I started a topic related to the material you are adding against WP:Project Automobile guidelines. Springee (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Springer, I found this info. on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV page, which "clearly" states Jimbo Wales commenting about having an editor having a minority point of view and placing its information on Wikipedia.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

I hope that the above info. will help with the disruptive editing done by HughD and placing an unnecessary NPOV tag on the main Chrysler article page.

Advice

Given your long history of disputes with HughD, I recommend heeding the counsel given at the recent ANI regarding the two of you. Even though an IBAN wasn't officially imposed, I think you should act like one was (even if HughD isn't). HughD is likely facing an expanded block or ban at WP:AE, and that will happen regardless of any actions you take. So my advice is to take a break from any articles the both of you have been editing on, wait for him to face his sanctions, then clean up the mess later. There is no deadline. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, thanks. I was taking the bait wasn't I. It was disappointing to see that he felt it was perfectly OK to return to old topics and start fighting again. I had intended to fully disengage (auto topics excluded). I'm sorry that Hugh wasn't willing to do the same. Please note I have not made any article edits, only limited comments on talk pages (Pinto edits excluded) Springee (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Believe me, I understand your pain. I can only guess the user in question sees the writing on the wall in terms of future anticipated blocks/bans and has decided to go a bit kamikaze as a last hurrah. That's the only motive I can think of for the recent behavior. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, for an traveling editor he certainly has a lot of time to campaign... [7], [8] Springee and try to stack the deck [9] (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I doubt any traveling is taking place, except to newer and more distant forms of logical fallacies. Or maybe a car show, given the newfound interest! I suspect it's a WP:TEND attempt to copy you (when you said you were traveling and away from the internet in this ANI thread, he openly guffawed). In any event, looks like he'll soon be blocked for 30 days so I'd continue to wait it out before reengaging on articles where he's active. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I had similar thoughts about the travel part. Springee (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, this seems a very bold claim [10] given this [11] and the strong suggestion here [12]. Springee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If his most recent trip to AE doesn't sufficiently chasten him (and it doesn't appear it is going to, unsurprisingly), I am prepared to file an ANI report based on his long-term harassment of me, starting with him copying my user page and continuing with his frequent unfounded claims that I'm some sort of self-appointed gate-keeper of conservative articles on Wikipedia. Only one of us has a topic ban in that area and yeah, it's not me. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I have no doubt a disruptive editor will be reading this shortly. Regardless, any suggestions on how to get him to respect the community consensus and leave the automotive space? [13]

Safehaven86, do you think this addition is information or politics? [14] Springee (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot cars

	A Chrysler PT Cruiser for you!
	Thank you for your constructive edits on chrysler. I appreciate it! FixCop (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:SIG MCX

Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?

Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), you have elected to cut off communication on your talk page. Until such time as you are willing to discuss what ever issues you have with me on your talk page you are prohibited from posting on my talk page. I'm sorry it has come to this and hope that we can put these issues behind us in the future. Springee (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I would note that despite your attacks on my character related to the exclusion of material from the F-650 and Caprice articles, it appears the community strongly supports the same view I had. Please keep that in mind the next time you accuse an editor of malice because they don't see things your way. (PS: You may reply here to this topic) Springee (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:HUSH and WP:POLEMIC. You've been told to cease bothering me with your talk page warnings. Don't come to my talk page to announce what you think I've done wrong, and don't use your talk page for the same purpose. Using Template:User to trigger a ping, as a transparent ploy to work-around your being banned from my talk page, is harassment. Either make your case at a noticeboard, or stop following me around, criticizing me and complaining about me. If you would spend your time building an encyclopedia, instead of obsessively fighting these narrowly-focused battles, you wouldn't have personal conflicts of this nature. Do you see any other editor who literally has nothing else to do on Wikipedia except fight over this F-650 thing? You're the only one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You should probably review HUSH and POLEMIC a bit more carefully before throwing out another accusation of bad faith. I certainly can't understand why you are fighting over "this F-650 thing". You are trying to tell others to just accept the content as not worth fighting over (yet you went to 3RR in 1 hour due to this content). You are almost trying to shame the majority who doesn't agree with you into dropping the topic. You have made a lot of ugly accusations against me as part of this process. I would ask you to look in the mirror and see just how many apply to your behavior in this matter. Springee (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I don't want to continuously argue with you. Please drop it. Springee (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

The edit you reverted here was not vandalism: [15]. Please review the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" at WP:VANDAL. Basically, if the edit was intended to improve the encyclopedia then it isn't vandalism, even if you disagree with it. Falsely labelling an editor as a vandal is a form of personal attack. Felsic2 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I would say that was vandalism. The edit wasn't intended to improve anything. That IP editor is hounding me (note that the IP followed me from the Mini-14 article). Also note that there was no discussion before restoring the material and that much of that material was already added to the article thus restoring as was results in a great deal of redundant text. That isn't an attempt to improve, that is a trolling editor. Springee (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that following an editor is evidence of bad intent? If so, I'd encourage you to look at your own behavior. And no, \adding well-cited, factual, relevant material is not "vandalism", even if you don't like it. If you're not sure on that point we can ask an admin. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the edit. In this case the IP editor was likely unhappy that I had the page semi protected and thus followed me to Eddie Eagle to revenge revert. The Chicago based IP editor was not revenge reverting but I think you can admit the UK based editor was not trying to build rather was simply trying to be a pest. If that IP wanted to build the talk page was there and you even asked that he join the conversation. Has he? Springee (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Election maps

Thank you for your comments on our talk page on the Washington Presidentiak election. I believe Dennis, while trying to aid Wikipedia, has over stepped the boundaries regarding biases in showing counties in the maps. I believe the pie chart to be a poor use of space in the infoboxes, but I fear he will have me blocked for speaking out. Can you help me make sure the mos are restored? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@PalmerTheGolfer:, thanks. Sadly it also resulted in the notice just above your comment. Springee (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@PalmerTheGolfer:, this might be thrown at me later there are a lot of claims of hounding going around. Those claims are problematic because wp:hounding isn't just, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." It also includes this important sentence, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (emphasis mine). If an editor is making a series of changes to a number of articles then it isn't hounding get involved with those additional articles. It's unfortunate that a generally good editor is edit warring and throwing out such accusations (I've been on the receiving end as well) simply because others don't agree. Even worse when local consensus (of just a few editors) is clearly against the change. Anyway, I would suggest created a RfC to address the issue. Springee (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of General Motors into General Motors. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC by sock

Since these guys insist on playing this charade, it's probably worth it to put your !vote on the discussion so that later on, *cough* someone doesn't claim you didn't oppose it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• New IP editing that RfC....from Amazon hosting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, typical of HughD. I've mentioned it to The Wordsmith and Fyddlestyx. Fyddlestyx and I rarely agree but he is a good and reasonable editor. He is also aware of HughD's history. Note that The Wordsmith has said on his talk page that he believes the IP is Hugh. I think second SPI request may be in order. Springee (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Stepho, I think that is perfectly reasonable. The previous conversation seemed to have died out with 3 editors supporting the changes and one against. I don't count the IP troll. I was hoping the NOR discussion would have addressed the question and I tried to phrase the question neutrally. Perhaps with your clearer phrasing we can get an outside opinion and put the issue to bed. Springee (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Spa

Hey Springee, so if you look at Template:spa, you'll notice that it says it should be substed whenever it is used. I actually do understand that it might look a little underhanded to be substing a template that's nominated for deletion, but I explicitly said on the deletion page that I was going through the transclusions per the template's instructions. Please be more careful--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Please do not refactor or remove other editors' comments at talk pages as you have done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is no proof yet that the present IP is a sockpuppet of HughD, although the duck test would seem to indicate it. But that is not relevant, because removing comments possibly (or even probably) made by blocked users is not an exception to WP:TPO, which is a behavioural guideline that we are expected to follow for good reason. You may be confusing the situation with the practice of automatically reverting contributions of site-banned users, but there is a very real difference between that and doing the same with a suspected sock of a blocked user. I hope you'll understand that the text I've restored is content that I think is useful, as well as content that had already been replied to by Doc James. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:, I understand your concern. However, I also fear that restoring the blocked editor's content will simply encourage more IP jumping and disruptive edits. The content you restored wasn't disruptive per se but the long series of edits by this IP editor has included a number of disruptive edits ([[16]], [[17]])). Regardless of if we have proof that this is HughD, the SPI discussed here [[18]] did conclude that we are dealing with one editor (most likely HughD). Regardless of if this is HughD, the editor has been declared WP:ILLEGIT, [[19]]. As an illegitimate editor again it's best to not encourage and remove contributions. Other editors should know who they are replying to. Springee (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Nevertheless, the talk page guidelines are important to observe and I did do the research into the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive, before concluding that the question raised by Doc James was legitimately answered, and that it was more important to preserve the debate in this case. I have to say that WP:ILLEGIT is not a label to be hung around an editor's neck like an albatross; it is a policy designed to prevent the use of "alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus." I do not accept that it is appropriate to apply that to the dialogue that occurred at WT:MED. I do understand your frustration with this editor and respect the investment you have made in attempting to prevent disruption from him. However, my experience is that automatically reverting contributions by blocked (not banned) users without any consideration of the value of those contributions is counter-productive more often than not. You only have to look at User talk:HughD to see a previously constructive editor who got a "bee-in-his-bonnet" about US politics and went off the rails. You need to ask yourself what long-term outcome you're looking for? If you want to play "whack-a-mole" with an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses in the hope that he'll get fed up, you're on the right track. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to see his energies diverted into useful editing, you need to stop discouraging the contributions that have some potential value, and reserve the WP:RBI treatment for the clearly unconstructive ones. You've been here very nearly as long as I have, so you'll have your own experiences, and your assessment of what's best may differ from mine, but I hope you can accept that I'm trying to give advice that I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:, Unfortunately the SPI page doesn't mention the third, offline SPI. Blanking the additions made by this IP has been the practice of at least one involved admin (I posted some examples at the project medicine discussion). I was following that example. The long term outcome I would like is for the IP editor to stop hounding my edits. Beyond that I would accept HughD's return if he would change his behavior and actually work with other editors (some of what you are seeing is the behavior that has been around for many years and resulted in a topic ban that evolved to an edit block. In any case, this may end up in ANI though I'm not optimistic that would result in much. At best he would be a banned editor and then his edits could be reverted once the next IP was identified as his (a real problem here). I don't believe his recent edits were all that productive. Taking an article that needs help and dumping a strongly biased presentation of the facts, isn't really improving things. Anyway, I didn't realize his edits had been replied to when I removed them. Springee (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pintography

Is that HD, ya think? Anmccaff (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:, smells like it. Look at all the IPs I dealt with a few weeks back. This one is doing some of the same things. We have tagging vs fixing. IP address that is hard to trace. Starts by creating a user page as an ip. Clearly knows their way around Wikipedia. Not certain like some of the previous cases but smells none the less. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for this [20] DN (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your pal HughD is back...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that Sockpuppet Investigation

I see it was declined Checkuser but the behavior pattern does seem clear enough to me as well. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ford Pinto you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto

The article Ford Pinto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ford Pinto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

AFP IP revert

Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize that but good to know. Given the very political nature of the article I'm always suspicious of IP editors that add one line paragraphs. It's good to have a second set of eyes review things. Springee (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos [[21]]. Thanks for letting me know. Springee (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE.Springee (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA poll

The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;

To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013.

If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Darrenhusted:, this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks, i was working on it, Kvalin (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merely a formality -- it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

3RR

It looks like this was your 4th revert in the past 24 hours [22]; please consider self-reverting. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, you are correct. Sorry about that. I still think the changes need to be made. Let me know what you think of the updates. Springee (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. I will comment further about the raid, etc on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP!

We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather --Limpscash (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential advocacy at National Rifle Association

Hi Springee, I'm referring you to these two threads:

• Talk:National_Rifle_Association#The_ATF_and_Senate_confirmations
• Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Somewhat_off-topic_discussion_on_neutrality

These edits and positions look like WP:SOAP, which is not allowed per the AE gun control case that you've been alerted about. Please consider self-reverting and discussing the challenged edits further on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman:, I disagree. Removing the information results in a NPOV issue. Telling one side without telling the other isn't OK. Perhaps we need to get some additional eyes on the article. Springee (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FedEx

Hi Springee, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.

Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jimgerbig:, in the edit tag I noted the material was WP:Undue. An accusation of advocacy can been seen as not WP:AGF. Remember that RS doesn't mean sufficient Weight. I will add a NPOV yeah to the second when I get a chance to add the appropriate material to the talk page. We both should be discussing the edits there vs here. Springee (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oops! I just noticed you already rec'd the same notice above. Oh well. FYI still applies... - ^theWOLFchild 07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, no problem my friend. I was confused at first but saw the IP address. It's a troublesome IP editor from down under. In going to request some IP blocks shortly. Thanks for the note. Springee (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a block would be good. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.

Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Bingo. Springee (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And, another one, too. User:AlainaP14. Persistent sock puppeteer. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Advocacy concerns at AR-15 style rifle

Re: this edit, if you wish to impune motives to a sources, please use WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. The comments that I have a concern about were:

• sourced to an article that is clearly arguing for restrictions on civilian ownership
• The NYT article is clearly has a POV etc.

I've already alerted you to similar concerns earlier. Please keep the DS restrictions in mind. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, in this case I stand by those statements. I can add the NPOV tag to the article if that would help but it is clear the NYT article is not a neutral telling of the differences but is an article making a case for restrictions. Those are topics that are within the scope of the talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you consider an expert source (C.J. Chivers) to be non-neutral, while you have recently advocated for using NRA's statements in articles :-). Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, let me start with an assumption of good faith. I know we don't agree on some of this but I do trust that you are trying to make the article better for our readers. That is my goal as well. I'll apologize up front if any of my tone comes across poorly. OK, to your questions, Chivers may be well informed but we should keep in mind the nature of the work vs the stated purpose of the section. The NYT article is clearly trying to make a case that the differences between the military and civilian ARs are insignificant and that they are both very deadly etc. Mentioning the recent school shooting before that clearly sets the tone for the article. So if we were just asking Chivers to tell us the differences that would be one thing. However, both the NYT article and much of the information in the the Wiki article is not an apolitical description. You are also correct that I advocated (and still do) citing the NRA directly in the NRA article. However, in that case I'm saying the article should state the NRA's stated position on relevant topics. If the article discusses the "gun show loophole" then summarizing the NRA's stated position on the topic (cited to the NRA) is neutral. It is neutral to say reference a statement of a political candidate from their campaign website (ie John Doe said X in response to Y on their website).

I guess to some extent I'm having trouble seeing why you see these as inconsistent position. I see the AR-15 article as apolitical. Yes, mass shootings are political (among other things) but a statement and link to the shooting covers that. Since the AR-15 is the focus of gun control efforts right now it also makes sense to have a dedicated section to that topic in the article. It shouldn't advocate for or against but just state and link to other articles. The rest of the article should be technical or fact based and decidedly apolitical. My issue with the differences section is isn't apolitical.

The NRA article is another matter. Much of what the NRA is involved with is very political. In that case we should strive to present both sides of a debate. Using my gun show example from above. Lot's of articles have criticized the NRA for not wanting to close the GSL. Well it would make sense to include the NRA's statements saying why they don't want to close it. The NRA's view should be presented as neutrally as possible (ie no messengers altering the message) hence citing the NRA itself (with clear attribution).

I hope this helps you see where I'm coming from. Springee (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I'd like to return to this diff posted at the beginning by K.e.coffman. In it, you write:

• "The NYT article is clearly has a POV. The basic facts it presents could be sourced to any number of neutral sources."

Am I to understand that you object to use of non-neutral and/or biased sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, I think this is a question that should be discussed back at the article talk page. To answer your question, it depends on context. Springee (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that there is no policy which requires sources or content to be "neutral". NPOV expressly allows non-neutral and biased sources. "Neutral" in NPOV refers to editors, not content or sources. Editors are supposed to edit in a neutral manner, and thus they must preserve and reproduce the bias in a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, I don't think you are correct in this regard but this is really a comment about the edits at the AR-15 article so we should have the conversation there where others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I believe you may be misinterpreting how WP:NPOV works. Here's a supplementary essay that you may find useful: User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality. Your editing on the NRA and the AR-15 pages have not been neutral, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Source: WP:Neutrality of sources

For an in-depth exposition on this, read my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Since these are content specific questions they should be discussed on the article page where other editors can weigh in. Please move the discussion there. Springee (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a content related discussion. Please refer to these two sections of the Arbitration Request decision:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Neutral_point_of_view
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Advocacy

The recent editing has come across as non-neutral and promotional, that's why I'm raising these concerns here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. The questions are content related noting that neutrality can be a content issue. If you think a specific edit had a neutrality issue it should be discussed at the article talk page. I have real trouble understanding the claim of promotional. Anyway, please move this discussion back to the article page. Springee (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification on Wikiproject Firearms

Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners[23]? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans:, sure thing. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD socks

There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Self-published sources

You've been around long enough to know the difference between what we call self-published, specifically " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." and something like the SPLC. We wouldn't call the New York Times self-published either. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, looking through the RSN archive it appears that the SPLC intelligence reports are disputed as a RS. But they might be a notable opinion so I used a season to try to establish weight with respect to the topic. I found no external sources noting the SPLC's opinion. When I get the chance I'll bring this up in the talk page. Springee (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the SPLC is considered a reliable source but in general should be attributed. Sure there are editors who dispute that, but as I said, they are considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I need to review it more... I'm doing this from my phone... The threads I saw seemed to say reliable for somethings and opinion for other. Since I couldn't find external sources repeating the claim weight came into play. The best thing to do, and my plan after the edit was reverted, was start a talk page discussion. If nothing else, the group's response to the accusations should be added. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a RS, also for opinion. If there is any doubt, then attribute the opinion in a neutral manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics post-1932

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 - these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors.Springee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock

I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock--RAF910 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@RAF910:, there have been a number of those socks recently. I pinged NeilN a few times. It's clearly wack a mole. Springee (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, he has only been blocked for 31 hours, so he'll be back.--RAF910 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(Removed)

Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Truck bomb vs firearm

Continuing here so that not to clutter the Talk page...

On the topic of truck bombs, imagine if Ford manufactured an F150 series of truck bombs for, I dunno, target practice by civilians. But what if one of its truck bombs was used to firebomb a church? And then some more? We'd surely talk about the prevalence of church bombings on the F150 truck bomb page.

Related to WP:GUNS#Criminal use, I recently became aware of how the last sentence - "Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the 'See also section" - came into being. Woah, that was quite a leap. If you compare with WP:GUNS#Popular culture, it does not say "a single link". I actually like WP:MILPOP that's cited there; it works well in the area of military history that I edit. I believe that WP:GUNS#Criminal use should be more akin to WP:GUNS#Popular culture / WP:MILPOP.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on these two matters. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up: nothing at WP:GUNS has authority at Wikipedia. PAG come first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, thanks for the engagement. I think I get what you are saying. A truck is basically just something designed to move a heavy load and rarely would that load be a bomb while the gun is designed to shoot things and we shouldn't be surprised when the targets are people. However, we do have cases of trucks/cars being used to hit pedestrians and we don't add that to the truck articles. I admit I think that part of the sensitivity in the gun area is the politics involved. Most editors just want what they think will make the encyclopedia a better work (even people who disagree) but we also see agenda driven edits (on both sides). Anyway, as I see it we have two topics, the crime and a device used as part of the crime. The question is does the mention of one in association with the other go two ways. Since the consensus is largely no in the case of cars used in a crime I'm not sure why it should be yes for guns. Bonnie and Clyde is an interesting case. They have a two way association with both the Model A V8 Ford coupe and the Browning BAR. But articles about the car and the gun often mention Bonnie and Clyde. I don't see that when reading articles about many of the guns in question. I also don't see that when reading about Chevy Caprices and the DC sniper attacks.

I agree that I'm not comfortable with the "see also section" comment. I understand why it was put there. I'm not sure what the right balance is but I'm fully behind the general concern that resulted in that line. That said, if you make a suggestion for a change on the project talk page I will take a look. I think your point here is valid and the current text could use work. Springee (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"I do not wish to reopen that RfC but I think there is firm grounds for a challenge..."

Sorry, that is weasel: [24]. If you do not wish to reopen the RfC, then it may not be a good idea to disparage the close and the closer; see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you believe that you have grounds to vacate the close, then please request a review, instead of posting such comments on a Talk page. I suggest you either remove the comment or notify the editor. Talking about them behind their back is not appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, I'm not but consider this this from the other side. I suspect you have a feel for what you think my views are on many of these issues. So assume I hadn't edited in this space but I closed one of the close RfC's on the topic. Then I made the edits you seen since. Would you feel, in retrospect, that I was an unbiased closing editor? I tried very hard to pick my words because, as I said, I do think MrX was trying to close based on policy but when it comes to close calls I think honest biases (mine, yours, any editor interested in the topic) come through. Based on your suggestion I will ping MrX. I'm not OK simply removing the comment since you are using the results of that RfC in a way that suggests these RfCs should be a forgone conclusion. Springee (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If I disagreed with a close, I would request a formal review, not go around someone's back to complain about it on Talk pages of unrelated articles. Would you not want to have the same courtesy afforded to you?

If you wish to retain this comment, please notify MrX about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, see my edit to the comment. It now pings MrX. Springee (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I had failed pings before when doing it this way: [25], so it's not 100% certain. Help:Fixing failed pings discusses in more detail; you might also want to to leave MrX a TP message to notify them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, good call. I'll leave a talk page comment just in case. Springee (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Emails

Hi, please do not post the content of emails that other users have sent you on-wiki. I have redacted the text and hidden the content under RD5. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, sorry, I will remember that in the future. Given the accusations being leveled at me I felt it was significant. Note I didn't include the name of the editor who sent the email. Springee (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I talked about it with an oversighter, and we've both emailed ArbCom to ask for advice. In general, the best policy anytime there is off-wiki communication is to email it to the committee. They have the ability to look handle potentially private information that other users do not have. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Gun use

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Reverting my fix of your personal attack title is very inappropriate. [26] Such activity adds to the list of problematic edits and attacks against editors who push you toward policy compliance. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The header was acceptable for ANI and should not be refactored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a strict policy that prevents me from lying, but I could likely craft a pretty mean header about Springee's activity. If he keeps dragging out his baseless ANi by posting to prevent archiving I may need to do some creative writing :) Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, you are welcome to make civil comments on my page that are related to articles of interest. If you wish to continue to discuss refactoring my ANI please do it on either your own or @NeilN:'s page. Springee (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, was the spacing on this edit deliberate? I ask because the the top half that you added an hour earlier looks like a separate, unsigned edit now, and the bottom half you added later, but with your earlier signature, is now highlited, but It's not clear why. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia effect

Hello Springee, in order not to have to much details on the RFC page some edits / changes which can show how it works:

a australian ip eliminates a misinformation in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=831764809

BilCat reverted in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831764809

Stewartsoda adds a reference in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831817374

just so fine to have reference ... what can we do?

Stewartsoda adds a reference in Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=831872773

Bingo. Self referencing by Wikipedia completed. Now we traced one single point ... how much more cases of wikipedia effect are existing?

A single case is not the problem ... systemically sowing invented facts without proves over years ... that is a real problem. People whose mission it is to distort perception just laugh at how easy it is. Making a hoax disappearing out of the world is much harder. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ:, I think it's worse than that. I think the HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article. It's easy to find pre-2012 references to the AR-15 but not the SLR. Springee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Exact that's what I mean: " HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article." Following this HuffPo could be identified als non reliable source for firearms info? See one HuffPo more found in Talk:2014_Moncton_shootings#Weapon_types. Now for the RFC ... I don't know what to do with this thing. It seems clear so far that the proposed section is based on wrong information ... hm ... embarrassing somehow. But how to handle this RFC now ?? And how to to harvest results for similar RFC's in future? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Finally I found a source mentioning 3 guns! "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun" + " He changed weapons this time taking out of the boot a semi-automatic point 308 F.N. or commonly called an S.L.R. or self-loading rifle. This was a military style weapon, he had taken that with him along with ample ammunition," mentioned in court. Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) Hm ... for me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons, as f.e. given in List_of_Colt_AR-15_&_M16_rifle_variants#R_series_models or this --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Conerning sources/RFC i just leave this here because i'm afraid it is too much info in one step. Simon Chapman: Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 1743320310 (275 Pages),(read online). --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Concerning the "Wikipedia effect" and the IP I left comment at User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_.... Perhaps you find the info useful. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENY

You've reverted a number of edits by sockpuppets on the basis of WP:DENY. The DENY essay advocates reverting vamdalism immediately and without fanfare, however I don't see anything about routinely deleting content simply because it was contributed by a sock. I've come across a few of these edits [27] [28] [29] [30] that are potentially constructive and certainly not blatant vandalism. In particular, I would consider this to be a well-written and helpful addition to the project.

Is there a policy or common practice that supports this type of wholesale reversion? I don't often deal with sockpuppets and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me. I understand that you're dealing with a persistent sockmaster but just want to make sure that we're not losing valuable content in the process. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: The relevant policy is WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. I'm going to have to change the tag from DENY to BLOCKBANDIFF. Too bad DENY is so much easier to write... Springee (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably use WP:EVADE. It has the same thrust: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I now understand the reason for the reverts. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please ...

Hello Springee, please have a look at Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia. I did my best. Minor faults on talkpages can happen ... but it should not in Articles ;-) Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is a lot of overhead and "fairytales" in other Parts of history - if you can shorten some of it ??

@Ｔｏｍ:, thanks for the ping. I'll take a look but honestly it's an area I know very little about beyond it getting mentioned as part of the US gun control debate. In general I'm going to try to stay out of those articles. Even the NRA article is on the overly political side for me. I have an interest in the gun control debates and arguments but at some level it becomes too much to fight over every article detail. Springee (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah Ok I understand. Normally I also keep my hands off those articles. It's just around this RFC etc. and this new Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. I thought it would be somehow nice to show good will for collaboration. Hm (idea) why not ask a collegue from there. Thx --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

just fyi: [31] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	WikiProject Firearms Barnstar
	The unauthorized WikiProject Firearms Barnstar is hereby awarded to Springee for their support of the Project and their dedication to firearms-related articles. – Lionel(talk) 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

You are close to breaching 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven:, Thanks for the heads up. I'm aware and verified before the last revision. Springee (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Looking back through your talk page history, it appears my warning for canvassing is at least the third you've received. All warnings were subsequently reverted by you. At this point, I am considering reporting you to the administrator's notice board. Had this been your first violation I wouldn't do that (after all, you could easily be unaware there is a policy against it), but since it's clearly not, it may be appropriate. Do you have an argument that I should not do this? I'm asking this in good faith. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, in what capacity do you think I was canvasing? Springee (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I posted this already on my own talk page in response to you, but here you are again. The definition of WP:votestacking:

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

That is precisely what you did here, following your comment here. You knew or believed that group of editors had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion". Textbook. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, Ah, I see the confusion. No, that isn't canvassing. Per WP:APPNOTE, "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I'll add more detail on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be the case if the editors you notified were non-partisan. However, it appears the editors you pinged all had a "predetermined point of view or opinion", and your earlier edit makes it clear that you were fully aware of that. That sure looks to me like it meets the textbook definition of WP:Votestacking. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, I think you will find I notified all editors, not just those who agreed with me, who were not already involved in the current discussion. Springee (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that all editors who voted "oppose" were notified. I participated in that discussion but was not notified. I'll go ahead and ping the others. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. See my talk page - there's no point in having two parallel discussions. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does look like I missed Dlthewave. I confused editors involved with the two AR-15 discussions. I didn't notify those involved in the Port Arthur discussion because it wasn't related and could be seen as cavassing. Springee (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that this could well look like canvasing, in future you should be more careful (it's one reason why I tend not to ping users to new discussions, it avoids forgetting anyone). The warning is valid, and as long as you acknowledge your mistake I think we can drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It turns out Springee has had multiple previous warnings for canvassing on his talk page. He reverted them so you have to check the history. So this is not the first time, and I'm still considering making a report. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Then this needs to be taken to ANI, as an ongoing problem related to a DS page.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will do. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, Other than Dlthewave, who didn't I fail to notify? The Port Arthur editors were not notified as that was unrelated. Springee (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing in the topic area should generally be avoided. See for example, Arbitration Enforcement discussion from March 2018: "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon". Given that the "oppose" votes in the prior Colt AR-15 discussion came largely from WP:GUNS members, pinging them may be "frowned upon" if taken to AE.

With your penchant for advocacy in the topic area (User_talk:Springee#Advocacy concerns at AR-15 style rifle and User_talk:Springee#Potential advocacy at National Rifle Association), this is close to getting into a disruptive territory. Especially when combined with the edit warring from earlier today. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, sorry, that doesn't fly. Disagreement isn't advocacy any more than your removal of firearms information from many pages is advocy. Springee (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter how many you did not notify, the fact you failed to notify one edd you had every reason to assume would be in opposition to you is the issue. It might have been an oversight, but if (as been suggested) this is part of a pattern it needs to be looked at.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does matter because intent matters. Are you comfortable taking an honest mistake to ANI? Missing a single nonvoting editor who's reply was buried in a back and forth? Springee (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what your intent was, only what you claim is "I was innocent" and what another user claims "He has done it before" (and a third who says this is part of a wider pattern). So yes I am comfortable with it, either you are innocent (in which case no harm is done, you will be exonerated) there is a question mark but no hard evidence (you might decide it is not worth trying it again) or you are demonstrably guilty (and thus need a sanction).Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, it looks like an attempt to use the ANI process to drive content disputes. WW's claims are just that. Springee (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, now I am bowing out. I have explained what you did wrong (and you did do something wrong, even if it was an accident). Any more comment here is futile, which is why I think ANI is the way to go. There all users can have their say and present their case to totally uninvolved admins who can judge the claims veracity better then I can.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Votestacking

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waleswatcher_and_3RR --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GUns

I think you also may be getting close to a block, the page is under DS and you reverted how many times now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-15

Springee, this is a compromise version we discussed on talk. If you insist on reverting this new version as well, please give a substantive objection and a suggestion for an alternative version that is better in your view. Please recall that all of this started because you objected to the "many" version because it was too vague, and this addresses that problem. Also note that you also reverted a grammar correction that has nothing to do with the controversial part. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Waleswatcher, The substantive objection is no consensus. No other reason is needed. Springee (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:CON, specifically the first paragraph: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Now, what are your concerns? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, Where is the independent voice that has said we have a consensus. You are simply edit warring at this point. Springee (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Again: what are your concerns? They cannot be "there is no consensus", that is circular. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, The discussion is on the talk page. I see no reason to repeat the opinions of myself and others if you aren't willing to listen. BTW, the article will now be locked for 7 days. I guess that means the locked version is the new stable version. Springee (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"BTW, the article will now be locked for 7 days." Maybe, or maybe you will actually be willing to help achieve a consensus by expressing some concerns or suggesting some alternatives, and then we can ask an admin to unlock it. As for stable version, I don't know if there is an official policy, but I assume you are being sarcastic since you stated locking the article does not stabilize it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I'm willing to compromise but that doesn't mean a slight change to what you have already tried to put in. My comment about "stable version" was based on your questionable claim that after "6 days" the article was stable. Springee (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the new section talk page of the article (direct link [32]). Best to discuss there. Thanks in advance for being willing to compromise. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussions at 2A talk page

I would like for you to comment at ongoing discussions at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think you're input would be valuable. SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

just some classic music

Hi Springee, I can not follow this discussions which in my opion are almost self repeating. Some parts I have read ... almost fatigued. For you as a gift this classic music. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock

Please see Talk:Handgun page for another 96.68.58.179 sock--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind...NeilN just blocked him.--RAF910 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

primary/secondary sources

Some quotes from wiki policy that might help you understand this (that I don't want to clutter the article talk page with):

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Hope that helps. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, You are confused. Journal and other academic papers are typically considered the best sources to cite. The "paper reviewing existing research" does not mean a news story summarizing a journal paper. It means if we are trying to summarize say all the different research in a given field we shouldn't compile that information ourselves, we should cite a third party doing the same. But let's skip that and go to the passages that make it clear we should cite the research paper vs articles talking about it if we want the content of the paper (vs talking about the paper's existence). From WP:RS, source types, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. That's very clear that when available these are the best sources. Somewhere, and I appologize because I don't see it right now, I believe there is a quote that specifically says we should avoid using an intermediate source when we have access to the original RS (that is, if we have access to the journal article and its conclusions, don't use a reporter's summary of that article's conclusions). From WP:NEWORG, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. may be the part I'm thinking of. Springee (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Academic journal articles - with some exceptions, like reviews or opinion pieces - are primary sources, and primary sources are not generally good sources for wikipedia. They're primary because to publish a paper in an academic journal you generally have to discover something new, which means your paper is the first place that information has been reported, and that makes it a primary source by definition. Gius' article is an example: it's the first place those numbers appeared (as far as I know, but if they appeared elsewhere he didn't know about it since he didn't cite it).

If you'll read just a little further down from where it says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" you'll find "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Waleswatcher (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. Not much else to say. You are confusing using a third party to summarize multiple papers with directly reporting what a single paper says. I would strongly suggest you ask at WP:RSN. Springee (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to ask - the policy is clear. Anyway it seems you decided to move the discussion back to the article talk page, so I won't respond here any further. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Forum shopping"

Hi Springee, you mentioned "forum shopping" twice in this discussion: Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Propal. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it's not forum shopping when the last discussion occurred 20 months ago. Please review WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, you've bolded your comments twice, which could be confusing. Could you please unbold one of them? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), thanks for reaching out. If you review the forum shopping link it says, "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards ... or any one of these repetitively,". This is essentially the same question. If something has changed and the RfC results should be revisited then the participants should be notified. To ignore the old result and attempt a new vote while ignoring the old result is improper consensus building. I see what you mean about the bolded comments looking like multiple votes but that isn't the case. Neither of my comments speak to inclusion or exclusion of content. Rather they speak to the validity of opening the proposal without adequately addressing the results of the previous RfC. As a final note, I want you to know that even though we don't always agree you are welcome to raise questions here. Springee (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Indent gap

MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:, did screw up an indent somewhere (recently)? Springee (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. I was confused You included a space before your reply at RSN, but it was needed as you were "outdent"ing. I meant to inform the editor after you. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My Reply

My apologies for the delayed response. Anyway, i would just first just like to clarify that i have no concern for politics, gun-laws, or "significant association". I made those edits for the sole purpose of 'information'. I believe that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to inform. I don;t believe information should have to have "weight" in order to be given. May i nicely and calmly ask that you please undo your erasing of those edits. If you would like to move this discussion to the project:firearms page, i would be glad to accommodate. Thank you and good day. :@OmniFrieza994: talk 15:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@OmniFrieza994:, the problem with just adding information is that wikipedia policy says we should only add information when WP:DUE. I would be happy to discuss those inclusions at Project:Firearms. It would be good to get more voices involved. I would also suggest reviewing this recent RfC. [[33]] Also, as a general comment, there is a concern with a topic like guns that some editors will wish to make every article about a firearm into a list of the crimes committed with that firearm. This is definitely a point of contention among editors. Some want the article about the firearm to be exclusively about the device. Others are more interested in the social impact and see the device as having no note beyond its social impact. This ends up being an area of contention. Another concern is simply adding long lists to articles. This is generally discouraged regardless of article subject. Anyway, if you take the question to project firearms you will find some editors who probably favor your edits and others who object and likely some in the middle. Most importantly, it will help build consensus so what ever changes are made will have community support. Springee (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How to do the star thing

Good question. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Barnstars Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

Happy holidays.2018 Holidays (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hue Dee

I’ve just noticed a certain decline in the quality (if not the volume) of the socking. Hadn’t been following him for a bit. When exactly did it get totally doolally like it is now? Qwirkle (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle:}, it was very recent. I'm confused by it since HughD's sock behavior was very consistent for a long time. Not sure why there was a shift. I'm still confused by some of this. In the SPI archive you can see that in early December I was confused by the view that HD and 72bikers were the same editor. Anyway, it's quite possible that HD just decided that their normal efforts were getting reverted without question so attacking those who otherwise would have been "on their side" was the plan. There might have been a bigger plan but I also might be giving HD too much created. It's possible it was just to have fun and stir the pot. Springee (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

speaking of pots, potted another one: user:Lifeclime. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Glock. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

I know it's a bit delayed, but this edit may be viewed as an attempt to notify other editors who support your position. You've been warned about this before. –dlthewave ☎ 21:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)