User talk:Steveok1

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Make America Great Again, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meszzy2 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree the goal is consensus and maintaining appropriate encyclopedic style. I also believe it is crucial to explain how the slogan is often considered a "loaded phrase" today. And the intro paragraph seems appropriate to discuss this, because earlier in the same paragraph, it discusses how important the MAGA slogan was for Trump and how other presidents used similar slogans. To balance the other sentences in the intro paragraph, it is important to discuss how and why MAGA is often heard and used differently today than it was in the Reagan era, for example. Do you not agree it is important for readers to understand the differences as well as the similarities in how the phrase has been used? And that a fair understanding would say it has some controversy attached to it (as described in the Voice of America article)? Steveok1 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

While this is true refusing to accept what is opinion and what is fact is the issue here. The VoA article may be true in may people’s eyes which makes its inclusion valid. However, purposely constructing the sentence in order to mislead readers should be fixed Mav214 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned in a previous comment on your discussion page that all of VoA is not speaking in this quote, and I believe that is a fair point. Although an editor at VoA was certainly involved, the quote was written by the author of the article, and I have changed the sentence to reflect that. In regards to calling the article an opinion, I disagree, because the article is actually analytic journalism. As shown in this diagram from the Wikipedia article, analytic journalism includes an interpretive aspect based on evidence, but it is *not* commentary (opinion), which is shown outside the diagram. It is fair to call the author of the VoA article a journalist, not a critic. I am discussing this further on your talk page. Steveok1 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links in articles

Hey, just wanted to notify you quick heads-up that links to external websites shouldn't be placed in the bodies of articles (I'm referring to this edit). Thanks and best wishes, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I try to be careful to follow these rules and know how sensitive these topics are. Steveok1 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of thanks in talk discussion

Thanks, but if you would can you please remove my name and the screen shot from the page (not a cross out but a revert)? That puts attention on myself on a very political page, pages which I've made a point of keeping away from, and your use of my thank you gives me pause before using 'thanks' on future controversial edits. And while calling me a 'superuser' is appreciated (blushing), there is no such classification on Wikipedia, since all editors are equal and each individual edit stands on its own merit. Thanks again! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. Steveok1 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, appreciated. I had thanked you because the two examples you added illustrate direct real world examples of the way slogans can be turned around on the people exhibiting them. That Covington kid likely made tens of millions of dollars from a combination of being physically harassed because of a hat and then the media getting it wrong while publishing a quick incorrect judgment. Will be taught in journalism classes for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yes, journalism needs to learn this lesson. I appreciate the thank you and apologize for getting you involved today. Steveok1 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did so in good faith and I reacted, so my apologies as well. Just that so much emotion has been stirred up by media against a popular political slogan and hats, weird times to navigate working on articles about such should-be-innocent topics. If Andy Warhol was still alive (and who knows, maybe he lurks) he'd possibly create some of his repeated images using the hat and slogan, and would love to see a book by the shade of Hunter Thompson (or a novel in his voice using the theme) reporting from the 2020 campaign trail (Fear the Loathing Among Fearful Loathers). Will sign off before I get into comic book themes, thanks again! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you again! Good to talk to you. Maybe we have social media to blame, and we need a lot more art and Andy Warhol to help us understand these things. But I suppose the Internet brought us Wikipedia too, so maybe we will figure out the right balance one day. Thanks again for your understanding and your initial kind gesture 8 months ago which started our conversation! Steveok1 (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun mulling over these topics. You're very welcome, and thanks to you for getting my attention on both occasions. I don't usually socialize on Wikipedia except every once in a while on my page or once in a greater while over at EEng's. Do you know about EEng's user and talk page? Two of the best trips on Wikipedia. Jeez, imagine what Warhol would do with that Covington lad and the native American, or a painting combining the perspectives of the event from the kid, the native amer, and Abe Lincoln's statue which could maybe or maybe not "see" the non-confrontation confrontation, overlayed upon each other but able to be made out separately. If only I could paint realistically. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Activism

Hi! Thanks for your recent edits to the article 'Activism'. I think you've added some good sources. I have a couple of questions: 1) Is it NPOV to say that strategic disinformation is more commonly used by right wing activists than left-wing activists when the source acknowledges that use of disinformation by the left is not well-researched? It feels to me that your edit conveys a higher sense of certainty about this asymmetrical use of disinformation than is conveyed by the source. 2) Do these edits belong in the lead? Would they be better placed in the section about online activism? Anyway, I think this article is pretty terrible right now, so I appreciate your attention to it. Larataguera (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled with “strategic” myself. We can delete strategic if you like. This sentence is trying to summarize a paragraph I added under Internet Activism (in the Methods section). I am totally fine taking “strategic” out of this sentence. I certainly have been trying for NPO, and was hoping the 2 sentences in the lead would summarize additions I did in other sections and would also maybe balance each other out? Steveok1 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually too concerned about the use of the word 'strategic', but what about balancing this by acknowledging that that we don't actually know how much the left uses disinformation? The source says: available evidence suggests that the right has invested far more than the left in disinformation and conspiracy theories as core components of its activist repertoire, although a lack of similar research on the left makes comparisons difficult. I feel like this 'difficulty in comparison' due to lack of study is important to include if we're going to make this claim based on this source; otherwise it feels more one-sided than the source itself. That is, I think the content about disinformation on the left in the final paragraphs of page 4 and continuing on page 5 should be referenced as well for NPOV. Larataguera (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see that you had put that content in the 'methods' section. I'm still not sure it belongs in the lead though. I think if anything, there should be more discussion throughout the article on the differences between activism on the left and right (which is largely absent otherwise) and then that content should be broadly summaraized in the lead. But this is getting into discussion that is probably better had on the article talk page...Larataguera (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hard call on how to discuss disinformation, because the article also states “available evidence suggests.” I am open to re-working the wording. I think research often works with the evidence it has and states more research is needed. I do not think they actually suggest a large problem of disinformation on the left, but certainly we can adjust the language here. Steveok1 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the entire article needs more left-right balance. But if this is true, then it should also be reflected in the lead. I see you moved to the article talk page. I will talk to you more there! Steveok1 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI…I made a change to the sentence based on your feedback. I also started a discussion on the article talk page. Steveok1 (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]