User talk:Groupthink

'''Please note that I generally post replies to comments left here on the commenter's talk page, not this page. Also note that I usually do not remove any items posted here, even though I have the right to do so.'''

March 2010
Your edits to List of government agencies in comics, List of government agencies in DC Comics, and List of government agencies in Marvel Comics have been reverted. Because these edits occured on the heels of my recent contribution to your sockpuppetry case, your attempt to use WP:CFORK as an excuse for these edits is highly suspect. Those articles were split off as it the practice in the Wikipedia Comics Project. If you have any constructive edits to contribute on those pages, they will be greatly welcomed. --Xero (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I continue to be the victim of disingenuous attacks by editors who would rather sling mud than adhere to policy. Groupthink (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Credentialism
Did you say you liked this article on your user page? Amongst its many apparent violations of Wikipedia standards, it seems to contain unsourced material. Perhaps you'd like to improve it, as the tag is incredibly even old than the match cut one! Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I assumed blow meant the opposite of suck. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, oddly enough, they're synonymous. ;-) Groupthink (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate level of citations
I've been improving the match cut article somewhat. When you get a chance, you might like to update your citation requests. Please bear in mind that it is not usual for every fact in an article to be cited inline, as this makes the text unreadable. Rather, only doubtful information is tagged. According to policy, the content doesn't have to be verified, only verifiable. I'm also slightly hampered by not having the reference books listed - I suspect when the material was added, inline citations were less frequently used. I'm planning to move on to some of the other numerous video articles you have tagged at some point (starting from the newly blanked ones), but feel free to find references yourself to any of the missing citations! Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I see you have edited recently and wanted to formally welcome you back to Wikipedia! I will remove your name from the list of missing Wikipedians. If you ever go dormant again or retire (which I hope you don’t!) you can leave a message on your user page. Glad to have you back! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Disputatio nova contra mulieres


A tag has been placed on Disputatio nova contra mulieres, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
 * It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JTZegers Speak Aura 13:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Disputatio nova contra mulieres


A tag has been placed on Disputatio nova contra mulieres, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JTZegers Speak Aura 13:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Joel Hayward
You seem to be having trouble with the Joel Hayward page. Might I suggest using Twinkle to automate deletion discussions? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but in the meantime, there's a mess that needs cleaning as noted on the Talk:Joel Hayward talk page, and I'm loathe to make any edits for fear of screwing things up further. Groupthink (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies
I do not know how my edit modified your edit. Very sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries! Honest mistake. Happens all the time. Groupthink (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

CI Lithub reference
Please stop adding Christian terrorism to various articles based on a questionable source. If you feel the source is sufficient then take it to RSN and get consensus first. Springee (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The source is valid, and based on your editing patterns, I quite frankly think you're POV-pushing. Groupthink (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

RE: Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Re this edit: Your edit summary would imply WP:POINTY editing, which is disruptive. The purpose of the lead is to summarize what's in the article, so if it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead (WP:LEAD). Expand the article first so that this is supported by the article content - then add it to the lead. Then you won't need to WP:REFBOMB the opening sentence. Butler Blog  (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Never mind about the supporting in the article - it's pretty much covered in the motivation section. But still, don't REFBOMB to be POINTY.   Butler Blog   (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding NPOV headers without giving specifics at the talk page
The instructions are clear: "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." You aren't doing this. I haven't looked closely yet at your editing but it appears to be about an issue you feel strongly about but it is getting close to disruptive editing. I'll give you a chance to either remove them or start a discussion on their talk pages under a section heading saying something like "NPOV issues". I don't want to have to spend time doing that myself. If you don't do that and someone else, eg me, has to do it, I'll have to consider if a sanction is required. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have added talk page concerns for every page I've tagged with NPOV. I'm not sure which exact pages you're concerned about or what specifically your concerns are. Are you wanting me to add the specific verbiage "NPOV issue" to the talk page section header? Are you looking for links to policies? Help me out here, Doug. Groupthink (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Give me a few minutes and I'll add a list here of every article I've tagged NPOV cross-referenced with its corresponding talk page discussion. Groupthink (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma City bombing - Talk:Oklahoma City bombing
 * Terry Nichols - Talk:Terry Nichols
 * Timothy McVeigh - Talk:Timothy McVeigh
 * Centennial Olympic Park bombing - Talk:Centennial Olympic Park bombing
 * Eric Rudolph - Talk:Eric Rudolph
 * Christian Identity - Talk:Christian Identity (not created by me but replied to by me)
 * List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Expressed concerns in AfD discussion, happy to copy them to talk page
 * Hope that helps you to help me to address your concerns. Groupthink (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to add a section header and specify what has violated NPOV in what way. Doug Weller  talk 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey it's 4:30 AM where I am, and I'm trying to stay awake to form my arguments about systemic bias and WP:NOTCENSORED into a cogent whole supported by citations of wp npov policy which I can add to the talk pages, but I'm falling asleep fast. I'll have to get to it tomorrow. If that's not timely enough for you, revert me and sanction me if you must. Groupthink (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias? !? Your " discussion " on the CI page has nothing to do with the NPOV of the article. NPOV tagging the article based on that discussion would absolutely come across to others as WP:POINTY editing. Is that your intent?   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm, and your scarequotes, are unappreciated. I also suspect you're a sock of Doug Weller and am considering calling for a checkuser investigation. Groupthink (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller is a checkuser. You'd be better served taking on board the concerns raised by your fellow editors rather than chasing shadows.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, who are you and what drew you to this conversation? Groupthink (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My user page is clickable from my signature; you can learn all about who I am from that page. What drew me to the conversation was your attempt to discredit the concerns of multiple editors with baseless accusations of sockpuppetry.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So you just monitor random talk pages then? Or are you another sock? Groupthink (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, talk pages that make accusations of socking are of interest to checkusers. No, everyone who disagrees with you is not a sock. Repeatedly accusing editors of socking without providing evidence is considered a personal attack, so you either need to stop making unfounded accusations, or you need to open an SPI.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just, wow... Instead of actually addressing my question and concerns, you've accused me (and Doug Weller) of sock puppetry.  That's more serious than you realize, evidently.  As Ponyo already stated, you'd be better served to address the issues raised by other editors rather than attacking them.   I'd ask that you strike your accusation and we can move on afresh.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Groupthink You should strike all such accusations, wildly assuming people who agree are likely to be socks is a terrible idea, especially when as you now know I’m a checkuser and you managed to attract another here. Doug Weller  talk 20:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would appear that you've taken some time off from Wikipedia, and a cool down period may be a good idea. However, I want to point out that my request that you strike your accusations remains.  And I will politely point out that I expect you to address it.  Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are serious violations of WP:CIVILITY that breach the core principle of WP:AGF.  I understand that sometimes things are said in the heat of the moment, and I'm sure that's the case here; so, if you specifically strike through your comments, I'll take that as an appropriate retraction, and we can all move on.  I don't speak for Doug, but I am fairly certain that he would accept that as well.  (Note: simply blanking things sends an entirely different message, so stick to striking.)   Butler Blog   (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)