User talk:Nblund/Archives/2019/October

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Bill co-sponsorships ?
In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard article, you removed an edit of mine saying Bill co-sponsorships shouldn't be included unless they are covered by a secondary source

I don't understand the reasoning for this. Not sure what you mean by a secondary source here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijitmk (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY defines a secondary source. WP:NOTEVERYTHING explains why secondary sources are needed here. We can't just print every bill she co-sponsored. If you have more questions, the best place to pose them would be the talk page for that article. Nblund talk 18:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not make false statement of facts
You claimed towards me :
 * "you've not made any edits outside of this topic area" In reality only 1% of my article edits are about the Science of Identity Foundation in relation to Tulsi Gabbard.
 * "not sure that you have a very good sense of how policies are generally applied" I understand very well how to read, understand and interpret the text and spirit of policies, don't question my ability to follow policies.
 * " you're trying to include an accusation that NPR participated in a "Hinduphobic smear campaign" while simultaneously insisting that we can't discuss what NPR actually said. It's just not a defensible position." I never insisted that "we can't discuss what NPR actually said". The opposite is true, because my original text version that you deleted  (by falsely claiming that WP:N would apply to content of an article) contained: "NPR suggested in an interview with Gabbard that her religion Vaishnava Hinduism equates to a "cult" and she would "worship images of a cult leader whose preachings are anti-science". In this interview NPR also confronted Gabbard with various other types of accusations that got published since her campaign start." Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that virtually all of your edits in the two months you've had your account have been to pages related to Tulsi Gabbard, or pages related to the 2020 campaign. It's not an insult, it's just a fact about your editing history. If you're not willing to take input from me, feel free to make an inquiry at WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:BLPN or seek out the views of some other experienced editor.  Nblund talk 21:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux
You have reversed out all of my changes to the Stefan Molyneux article with the single statement "not supported by reliable sources". How did you even have enough time to check the sources provided? The sources I provided are videos of Stefan Molyneaux himself promoting his views. How an earth can youtube videos made by the author not be reliable on an article about a youtuber? I gave a very detailed explanation of each of my changes in 5 numbered points. Please address each point one by one and explain how the sources are not reliable. Gmann101 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you cited appeared to be youtube videos from Molyneux himself. Anyone can make a youtube video, and people aren't necessarily good sources about themselves. Wiley Brooks, for instance, claimed to have gone years without eating food. Secondary sources indicate he was lying, and we defer to those secondary sources. I added a comment to the talk page for the article, so we should continue this conversation there if you want to discuss further.  Nblund talk 15:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New editors at Tim Pool
I understand the concern regarding new editors at Talk Tim Pool. While Seraphael7 has a limited edition history, they have been around for 12 months. I think it's a bit unfair to tag them in a way that suggests a new account being called to action. Springee (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they were called to action, but that's not what the SPA tag says. They've been around for 12 months, but they have 25 edits. 16 of those are related to Pool in one way or another. Nblund talk 17:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to on object to your attempt to label me as a single purpose editor. My first post was related to somebody clearly vandalizing the article about a political party I belong to that I found while researching the origins of the precursor parties. I didn't even edit the page, I admitted I was partisan and requested that other people fix the vandalism (admittedly, my position on repairing clear vandalism on topics to which I am a partisan has changed). My other contributions have been adding references to a topic that was very weakly sourced (Blue Tory) which took me a around 10 hours of time including dredging through academic databases only available to people with insituitional access looking for any information I could find on the topic (which is incredibly sparse). Considering I spend so much time researching it I wanted to make some use of my efforts to improve the article. I also disputed the "non partisan" status of the Parkland Institute after they produced what I felt was a very partisan report so I spent some time reasearching exactly what they believe. All of these things are related to canadian politics. You might be suprised to discover I am a canadian. Also, I have been very vocal in opposing ridiculous attempts to smear Tim Pool. That is pretty much the last thing I want to be spending my time on, but I find it very offensive for someone to use biased articles to spread what are objectively lies. If you wanted to label me as a single issue editor on politics of the province of Alberta I think that would be fair, but it is not reasonable to label me as a single issue editor with regards to Tim Pool given that I have edited his actual page a grand total of one time (which accounts for 25% of the actual edits to articles I have made) and all I did was add references to the claim that he is a Journalist. The remainder of my posts of have been in the talk page (admittedly I have been somewhat hostile to the worst of the biased editors which has probably not been as productive as I would like). I would argue that I have exercised restraint in generally not editing the Wikipedia article itself and merely expressing my, admittedly strong, opinions in the talk page. Seraphael7 (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone sort of starts off as a single issue editor. I started out more or less the same way that you did: I saw an issue on a page and I made several edits to address it. It's not an insult or an attack on you or your editing habits, and I'm not saying that you have violated any rules or done anything wrong. It is just a bit of context for the person who assesses the consensus from the Request for Comments process. If you've made a sound argument, then your views will count for just as much as everyone else's. Nblund talk 15:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)