User talk:Simonm223/Archive 5

"Fascism"
When referring to fascism, I have added a better definition yet you remove it? The socialist definition has a similar format, yet in fascism, you refuse to add the proper definition. Instead of referring to the ideology and philosophy of/behind it, you remove it and leave it without proper definition? Crazy.

So socialism and communism are okay, but when it’s fascist ideology you have to rub into Nazism (a variant of fascism) and Mussolini. You have to understand fascism is an ideology and doesn’t need to refer to WW2, why doesn’t communism refer to their problems in WW2? Very biased definition! Please redo my edit, and put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs)
 * I'm quite aware of what fascism is. I will not be restoring your edit. Go to the article talk page and seek consensus there. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remove all comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.245.194 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * no. Simonm223 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay communist. :)


 * In the future, please restrict your comments on this page to required communications. I don't want to hear from you. Simonm223 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mr. communist, I am requesting that you remove my own writing immediately, for it is my own work. I have the right to remove what I deem to be removed since it is my writing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and 'help!'
I much appreciated your assessment the other week here. Pity it was found unreliable, I thought it was spot on. I wonder what you think of my analysis of the next suspect, which I tried to file here, but Bbb23 trashed it, too. He says it's a total mess and I got the filing all wrong; I never tried this before, must be muddled, I have a hard time following how to file things, but the evidence I've gathered is what counts, right? Any advice? Thanks in advance, MacPraughan (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Checkuser found no connection - it's pretty uncommon for a sockpuppet to operate from a different IP from the sockmaster. They might be meat puppets but that's a large hill to climb and I'm going to be honest with you that I don't think there's much benefit into carrying on. Bbb23 knows their business and they're a checkuser admin whose judgment I trust completely. I'm going to suggest that this is a time to consider putting down the WP:STICK - also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS kind of applies here in a minor way. Sorry I can't be of additional help. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! That's very helpful and I'll take you at your word. Thanks for the help. Great stuff. No use flogging a dead horse. MacPraughan (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Page split
After some thought I've realized that it's going to be very difficult to reduce the bloating of Antisemitism in the British Labour Party merely by reducing all the reactions because this will only lead to discord. As I see it, on the one hand there are users inclined to defend what they see as BLP violations against Labour politicians and feel that the various reactions and "rebuttals" on the page are necessary to balance out what I suppose comes off as an implicit accusation of personal antisemitism or I guess essentializing the party as anti-Semitic without similar scrutiny for other parties see also Nazi dressup parties attended by Tory MPs and the "scandal" about whether Miliband is really British given that he doesn't eat the "national dish", bacon, or Salmond's commentary that occasionally rivals Corbyn's in insensitivity -- I pay attention to these but the British public not so much, and these guys will see attempts to cut these away as launching an offensive. On the other hand others who see the problem as a manifestation of institutional antisemitism are incensed by what comes off as tokenisation and BLP violations on the other side like the accusations of Jewish Labour members who criticized Corbyn as being complicit in Tory or "Zionist" plots (even when it is Gideon Levy saying so; he outraged many lefty Jews in Britain for saying this btw, and was compared to Netanyahu and Trump for it).

So, alternative proposal -- split all "reactions" into Reactions to the antisemitism controversy in the British Labour Party. By reactions I mean all commentary from any side, except when that commentary is itself the scandal or the immediate response specifically from the relevant figure. This means we mention the words of Corbyn himself, or Ken Livingstone, or Luciana Berger, specifically when they were in the spotlight in the context of specific aspects of the controversy, while the rest, whether it is Jewdas or Theresa May or the Likud party or a Jewish socialist magician, goes to the new page. As for polls, I think they must stay together, and prefer they stay on the main page, but I would be open to them going into the Reactions page so long as they stay together.

Sorry this was long. Things were really heated on that talk page and I wanted to propose my idea here but also help you see where I'm coming from. What are your thoughts? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm divided. I fear a page split will just mean that many opportunities for the partisans to start drawing battle lines, but I do see where you're coming from here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Imo this would quarantine much of the POV warring into the splitoff page, because responsible or at least pragmatic editors would resist any attempts to add "commentary" to the main page. The splitoff page gets fewer views so POV issues there are less of an embarrassment to the project.--Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me think on it for a bit. I don't want to give you a knee jerk reaction right now especially since I'm getting to the end of my patience with one of the editors involved here and at Jeremy Corbyn and don't make the best decisions when I'm cranky. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Furthermore one could expand on the relevant issues more in depth in a split off -- i.e. instead of generalized "Rebuttals" they can be organized by argument, and rather than being Whataboutism, it would not be COATRACK on such a page to have a whole section "Accusations of double standards applied to Labour", where comparisons drawn to less-well-known episodes in other parties can be discussed (I have sources).--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. No rush.--Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Jeremy Corbyn's respective section is also becoming toxic. Cleanup and trimming is necessary, imo. This is a very significant issue but it does not take precedence over other aspects of Corbyn's public profile including unrelated his economic views, foreign policy and non-related social views, and it is tending to crowd the others out as both sides add more to "balance" things. The part at the top of the page is going to be my proposal: User:Calthinus/Corbyn_trimming_in_progress. But not yet. Fyi. Thoughts are appreciated. Unsure about a lot.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If we can do it in a balanced way I'd be very happy to trim these sections way back. You know I have a bee in my bonnet still over the fight with Icewhiz over the inclusion of the Lipstadt hit-piece; and in general I'd like to see editorials and opinion pieces excised entirely. But I won't support that happening if it's only being used to trim out defenses of Corbyn. The problem is that there's so little here that isn't an opinion piece. Or an opinion poll (I have a background in stats; I HATE opinion polls). And I mean, I'd be fine with there being almost nothing in those sections. But I don't think that'd fly with a lot of other editors. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hamas
Please note that in this edit - in addition to your stated intention (of entering China to the lede) - you undid an intervening edit, by that corrected reference formatting. If this was not your intention, please restore the inadvertant modifications to the content beneath the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Communism
You undid my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=860584917&oldid=860531138 with comment: '' I don't think that's right. Surely we should be pointing to the various Communist groups in India and not just one party.  The sentence I edited was:  In India, as of March 2018, communists lead the government of only one state, Kerala.'' The link in the second word, India, was leading to a disambiguation page Communism in India. Links to such pages should be avoided. While I generally agree that links in this article should link to various groups, not one party, but in this exact sentence it's about a specific party that actually leads the government in the Kerala state - this is Communist Party of India (Marxist) which I actually linked in my edit, that you undid. So I would be grateful if you could rethink the edit. --Jakas1 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't get into a revert war with you if you put it back but I would suggest the best place for a discussion like this would be article talk so that other editors can weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Feng Timo
Hello. As you were involved in the AfD for Feng Timo and appear to understand Chinese, would it be okay for you to adopt the article's DYK nomination? Since the original nominator hasn't edited in a while. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Chinese is my third language; I can speak it conversationally and I can read a few hundred characters but I'm hardly fluent. I also have less Wikipedia time than I did a few weeks ago as work picked up, but if I have a moment I'll help out. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

1rr
Remember the page is under DS, you have not beached 1RR but 1 more revert and you are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That last revert was a self-revert which doesn't count to 1RR. I deleted your tag because it no longer applied after I deleted my own mistaken edit. Chill a bit. I've no intention of getting into an edit war here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a warning, it is a bit of friendly advice, having forgotten this myself recently.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Where? I mean I'm on that board a lot but I assume this is over Parapsychology and I don't see it there.Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA
"All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits,.." per Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles.It applies to accounts also please undo your edit. --Shrike (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I mis-read that. And I read it twice... Sorry. I've self-reverted. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

moved & deleted comments
I've deleted our little back and forth about the comment that got put in the wrong spot. It just made the thread confusing. Hope you don't mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop page deletion : Aasan R. Rajendran
Thanks for your reply on "Aasan R. Rajendran" deletion page. Please let me know the next step or procedure to get the deletion tag removed from the page. Meanwhile, we will definitely work on improving and adding further facts to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * AfD is a consensus process. You can go to the deletion discussion and !vote there to keep the article, along with a rationale why you think the article should be kept. Then you wait until the AfD concludes; if the arguments to keep are more compelling than the arguments to delete, the AfD will be closed as keep. A note: this is all you should do. Don't try to campaign for keep elsewhere. A !vote is not an up / down majority vote, so number of !votes matters less than quality of !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 72bikers (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 72bikers (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Really totally beyond comprehension.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point it's almost funny. Oh well. Hopefully they calm down after a month cooling their heels. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could not even be bothered to type up a new complaint. Should have just asked directly for a block. Legacypac (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish I found it almost funny, I do not, I cannot help but feel that this level of total unawareness might have some underlying cause. Sadly I do not think they will calm down (I hope they do), I expect to see a draw of socks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I really hope some time to reflect will help them to focus on working productively on motorcycle articles, where they appear to be doing decent work. However, if 72 begins socking, I am not concerned. I've dealt with angry socks before too. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So have I, it is not a worry...well not for me, and I will leave it at that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree.
You closed a section on the fascism talk page. I absolutely disagree with your judgement. I presented sources and made a real effort to argue the case that the information already contained in the article should not be there. Not a single argument against my argument was brought forth. I am very disappointed in your behavior. You only engaged superficially. The fascism page is a difficult topic and I think it warrants a bit more attention than some others and therefore also a bit longer discussion. Also, since I already put in more work: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/ I am not doing this for fun or because I am some right wing nutcase. Just try to see the bigger picture here. There may also be room to compromise but in closing the discussion what are you achieving? --Technokratisch (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTAFORUM Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So far neither source you have offered (and there has only been 2, including this opinion piece in the Atlantic in this thread) have anything more than even the most cursory mention of Fascism; furthermore the only thing the Atlantic author manages with his unfortunate (but happily brief) mention of fascism is to explain how poorly he understands that particular political philosophy. I would suggest you would be better off to stop listening to random conservative trolls online about how "fascists are really left wing because Nazis had the word socialist in their name," and perhaps review some of the many sources we already cite in the disputed section. Now put down the bloody stick and find a more constructive use for your day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If "classifying fascism on the left-right political spectrum is without merit" is an opinion then the opposite is as well. So both must be supported by references. I gave now two references for the former (and neither may be very good, agreed), none were given for the latter by anybody. You have the opinion that Wikipedia should explicitly (in introduction, definition, and an entire section extra section) place fascism on this spectrum. I disagree. Can you at least acknowledge that this is where we differ and not on anything else? Also please don't be patronizing. I am being sincere.--Technokratisch (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been told repeatedly at article talk that categorizing Fascism as a far-right political ideology is supported by six sources. Those sources are linked directly off that statement in the lede. It's not a matter of "this is an opinion and this is a fact" - that's NOT what anybody is telling you. Wikipedia builds its statements from what can be verified by reliable sources. As we have said to you repeatedly at talk, if you want to say that fascism is not a political ideology on the far-right, you need a reliable source that says that - you have previously provided sources that claim that the left-right spectrum is no longer relevant; however unless those sources speak specifically to fascism they're not usable at all, as they would require WP:SYNTH to say anything about the article topic. This brings us to the Atlantic article, and while it would be better to continue discussion of that source at article talk, what you provided was an opinion piece by a journalist which is not WP:DUE lined up against the sources already in place. Basically, Wikipedia weighs the opinion of one journalist that fascism is entirely dissimilar from Monarchism much weaker than the sources such as The Routledge Compendium to Fascism and the Far Right, especially since there are multiple reliable sources that make the same claim. The behaviour you are exhibiting now is WP:IDHT so I'll again suggest that you just stop. Simonm223 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, the first part of this comment is again besides the point. I have never claimed that there are no sources that put fascism on the right of the spectrum. It is true though that I have been told "repeatedly" that it would be wrong if I were to claim that. So please do not mention it again it drives me nuts. And don't count this towards WP:IDHT because I never wanted to talk about this. The entire discussion on the talk page you closed was basically about this misunderstanding. The second part is relevant. Since I am here absolutely at your mercy since you have all the power and I have none I thank you for this. So you think this is a case of WP:SYNTH? It is true that the first source does not say that for fascism specifically the left-right political spectrum is meaningless. It says that it is just meaningless in general. Now does it count as synthesis to then conclude that the positioning of fascism on this spectrum is also meaningless? This does not seem practical to me. If I state a property of all natural numbers (e.g. that they have a successor) is it synthesis that the natural number 5 has a successor? I don't think so. The whole idea of a general statement like "the left-right spectrum is meaningless" is that it automatically counts for all special cases and does not need to be repeated for every case. So I don't think WP:SYNTH applies. Do you still disagree on this? Maybe more sources should be found to support the whole "meaninglessness of the spectrum" thing. I am happy to discuss this further on the according talk page. On your second point I agree that the source is weak, the journalist may be philosophy professor but yeah it's just in the Atlantic. However, do the other "contrary" references actually make the directly opposite claim? Namely that placing fascism on the left-right spectrum is meaningful and not bogus? Or do they just place it somewhere assuming it was important? Again there is a big difference between those two things. Do you agree there is a difference or not? And please, please don't give me another one of those patronizing psychoanalytical Wikipedia tags, that is just so rude, you have no idea. If you are bored by this, is it ok if I propose another softer edit in the future without you shutting it down straight away? Or do you still think I am an extreme right-winger trying to trick Wikipedia into supporting our plan of world domination? I am actually still hoping for a bidirectional good faith discussion with you one day since you seem to know your stuff but it seems quite tough to get there...--Technokratisch (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * tl;dr - just stop. I don't need yet another text wall from yet another SPA upset that Wikipedia calls Fascism conservative. I'll file you right next to the SPA who was upset that Wikipedia associates Fascism with Hitler and Mussolini. Stop pestering me about this here. If you have a substantive, policy derived, reason for editing the page, bring it up at article talk. But this line of discussion in this place is over. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohh, while you're at it, can you also file all these people-upset-that-Wikipedia-calls-Nazism-right-wing? They've just been sitting around gathering dust. And when you're done with that, there's a couple hundred folks-all-pissy-because-Wikipedia-calls-white-nationalism-a-form-of-white-supremacy and just as many editors-butthurt-over-Wikipedia-calling-the-alt-right-white-supremacist. And can you have that done before the next monthly meeting of the Cabal&trade; (there is no Cabal)  ? I think we're supposed to be doing some sort of year-end review.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly considering putting up a counter that reads "It has been 0 days since the last time somebody complained on my user talk about the long-standing consensus at Fascism." It wouldn't need any templates or code or anything because it'd just read 0 all the time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only came here because you forced me. I can imagine a lot of right wing nutcases get on your nerves about the fascism page but you have been wrong about me from the start and as a result abused your power. I forgive you though.--Technokratisch (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I forced you to do nothing. Stop. Posting. To. My. Talk. Page. On. This. Issue. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at the White privilege NPOVN discussion made me think of this...
First off, let me apologize for the wall of text, but this is an anecdote that deserves a bit of prose.

There are two sides to my family; My father's side which consists of relatively recent immigrants from Norway; and my mother's side which consists of two banjos, a homemade still and an iron cross tattoo. Oh, and a Miccosukee grandmother because god forbid it not be confusing as shit. Well, one of my cousins on my father's side (Art) is a respected, full tenured professor of physics at a reputable (though not ivy-league, he constantly reminds us) university. He is "a rich summbitch" by the standards of the other half of my family, and "well into middle class" by more objective standards, owing to a few patents he owns. He came from a well off family and is a rather typical New England Liberal, which makes sense, considering that he lives and works in New England. Me and Art generally get along famously, needless to say, though we have precious little other than social views in common.

Well, during one great family get-together a few years back which Art couldn't attend, one of those MAGA bedecked cousins (Skeeter, I shit you not) from the other side decided to use Art as an example of how black people are all lazy in order to convince me to abandon my liberal ways and join the right-wing fold because it sticks in their craw that the only family member of this generation with a military record and combat experience turned out to be a filthy lib'rul, and they have made it a quest to "redeem" me. Hell, I tried to get Skeeter and his brother Doodlebug Jr. to sign up with me, but he declined. And here you thought "Skeeter" was a redneck name. lol

His argument went like this: Art was the child of a farmer and a housewife. Art is now a rich summbitch. Therefore, all them n****rs hollering about minimum wage is lazy summbitches, because if they weren't, they'd be rich like Art. (I would note that the fact that Skeeter was what one might generously describe as "dirt poor" and the son of a welder and a homemaker. I would also note further that this fact did not, apparently, enter into his calculations.)

When I pointed out that Art's father was not merely a farmer, but the owner of several hundred acres, several million dollar's worth of farming equipment, and the employer of a workforce that ranged from a dozen to several hundred at harvest, and that he put Art in private schools and paid for whatever college expenses Art had that weren't covered by the scholarships Art earned in private school, I was literally met with the response "So what's that got to do with anything? Scholarships, man! Them n****rs can get scholarships, too!"

So when you hinted that many conservatives are reluctant to accept that being born wealthy is an advantage, I would like to respond that is not merely a suspiciously on-the-nose conviction that conservatives rarely give voice to but secretly hold in their hearts: This is gospel truth so bound up in their identity as "red-blooded Americans" that they've pushed it onto even their own poor as something to be proudly proclaimed.

Finally, and only because after that tale, this needs to be said: I kid you not, every single word of the above is literally and specifically true. Except for the bit about my mother's family being comprised of banjos and stuff. That was allegory. I may also have taken some liberties Skeeter's quote owing to my own imperfect memory, but I assure you that the message was identical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  19:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My housing subdivision used to belong to a "farmer" - he was also a local member of the provincial legislature for years, and he sold the unused pastureland he didn't need to graze his horses to a property developer for easily ten times the value of agricultural land by acre. On paper he's a potato farmer. In reality he's one of the more wealthy and connected people in the province. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. People generally don't understand the difference between a $20k/year income from work, $20k/year profits on a privately owned business, and $20k/year from investments. The recipient of the former is poor, the middle is working class, and the latter is upper-middle class at worst.
 * And farmers come in two varieties: the kind that worry about getting foreclosed on by the bank, and the kind that foreclose on the bank. But only the former are well-known to the general public. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Unless you live around farmers. Then you find out the difference pretty quickly. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or own a business that turned a $20k profit one year. I did, and that was the same year I bought my $3k rifle, got my first new car and took a nice, expensive vacation. But on paper, at least, I qualified for food stamps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you own a business that turned $20k profit, you're putting through a hell of a lot more than that in revenue. I am technically self-employed and my wife was a realtor last year. We have some experience with this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No arguments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Move the discussion here
Simonm223, I hope you don't mind if we move the discussion here. It's not fair to Dlthewave to clutter their talk page as our discussion moves from the original comment/question. Having seen how you work I want to try to keep this communication open. You asked about excluding content. I do see the angle you are coming from. I have several concerns in this regard. Due to limited time I'm going to try to make this quick but would be happy to continue the discussion in more detail later if you think it's productive.

I understand disliking it when it feels like people are just trying to block content. Not long ago I was trying to add to the NRA article and felt stonewalled. You would think it would be relevant to add WHY the NRA supports certain positions or even what the NRA's stated positions are on various gun related policies. If nothing else, the amount of effort they put into lobbying makes no sense absent understanding WHY they are for/against various laws etc.

As for this recent article. First, I think it's a problem when an editor tries to reinsert the same material that was previously rejected based on the feeling that the local consensus might just have changed (more to the point, a slightly different mix of editors shows up this time). The gun articles in general have a problem, are they to be about the firearm or about the broader context of the gun's use in society? Another way to look at this is, doesn't weight have reciprocity? Significant event A prominently features item B. Does that mean even A is significant in context of B?  In the case of gun articles it seems we are often about 50/50 on this question. When the time is almost anything else I've found the answer lists to "no". Two examples I've cited (and was involved with) are a murder that was linked to a natural disaster and two significant crimes that featured vehicles (DC sniper attacks and Oklahoma City bombing - the RfCs are linked in the M&P15 talk page discussion). I think it's interesting that in those cases the consensus was heavily against inclusion. Editors simply felt that the crimes were not a significant part of the story of the vehicles/mudslide. Even when I look up "M&P15" on google I find that the crimes are not significantly associated with the rifle. The generic AR-15 (which as a logical grouping includes the M&P-15, Colt AR-15 etc) do get a lot of discussion related to crime but the individual models largely don't.

More to the point in my mind, if we follow the example of articles ABOUT the rifle's they almost never mention the crimes. Thus I don't see a reason to insert what can (and has) been used as a hook to make an article about a particular gun, into a referendum on firearms in general. A great example of this comes from part of the M&P15 RFC. One "For" editor produced something like 10 articles supporting inclusion. Only one of the articles even mentioned the rifle that's the subject of the article. When pressed on that question the reply was in effect "AR-15's in general" so it didn't matter if this rifle wasn't even involved with some of the crimes listed.

Anyway, I'm out of time but I hope this was a productive post even if we don't agree. Springee (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If a rifle's use in mass shootings has become notable under WP:SUSTAINED and similar, then I think we should report it. That doesn't require that the majority of articles about a specific firearm mention it, just that it is regularly mentioned. If it has not, then I think we can leave it off. I will admit that, from a personal perspective, mass shootings upset me, and from a personal perspective I think it's odd that the United States seems content to do nothing when there are so many steps that could be taken to ensure the allowance of responsible gun ownership while reducing the risk these event pose, and that makes me sympathetic to gun control advocates who would prefer to include information on the use of these weapons. However, I actually am pretty strongly pro-hunting so I do have a more personally nuanced view on firearms than many people who edit-war regularly on these pages. So you can rest assured I'm not coming at this from a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223, I hope you don't mind if I follow up with the sock editor discussion here. HughD has been a very active sock editor. For a while I was trying to report every instance. Give the large number of IP addresses and user names the admins have largely looked at the pattern of edits and the prose. The user names could be linked through other means and now we have the Chicago based IP addresses. Here is yet another example. [] I've generally pinged NeilN and a few other admins but was recently asked to only do this in cases where the sock was active. So many of these are a single burst of edits then nothing more. Sadly this sock's behavior has been going on for quite some time. Springee (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that the IP is now blocked, with a block notice pointing to Sockpuppet investigations/HughD, shows that Springee was right in reverting them, so I suggest that Simonm223 discusses matters such as these with the editor(s) involved, before reverting with an edit summary saying the edit was reverted because the IP had a clear block log. Having a clear block log does not prove that an IP isn't a sock since not all IPs get blocked even when proven to be socks (there's often no point in blocking highly dynamic IPs if the most recent edit was made more than 15-20 minutes ago, since the vandal/sockmaster would have moved on to a new IP by then...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand Simonm223's position. They haven't been involved with this subject area long enough to have seen the edit pattern and they are right that in general we should assume good faith.  I want to reiterate that Simonnm223 has shown impressive diplomacy in this area and even in disagreement their even tempered efforts towards compromise are greatly appreciated! Springee (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the IP is now blocked, that's proof enough for me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, the admin I pinged was - who is expert with SPI stuff. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm concerned about your view that this RfC has inappropriate notification []. Even though we don't always agree I've found you to be a very fair and reasonable editor.  I hope my reply to your Survey comment addresses your concerns.  If not I'm happy to keep the dialog open.  Springee (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it was a significant overstep to ping in participants in a year-old RfC prior to this one. I am concerned that you seem to have an NPOV problem related to the inclusion of notable information related to this firearm that is causing you to make unfortunate decisions. This is especially troubling in light of your comments regarding notifying a Wikiproject about a previous attempt at the RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also I'm sure I don't need to remind you that this article is under the firearms discretionary sanctions regime, which I know you are intimately familiar. While it isn't subject to WP:1RR at this time, I am sure you wouldn't want to look like you were using a malformed RfC to try to WP:BLUDGEON your way into winning a low-scale edit war. I would suggest you self-revert pending resolution of whether your RfC is legitimate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, first, we didn't have consensus for the addition prior to the RfC. If we assume PackMecEng is neutral then we were 3:2 for:against.  That's not a consensus for inclusion.  Now we have a RfC going.  I don't agree with your malformed view.  I notified 3 project pages and the previous RfC.  I also noted that such notification is specifically seen as appropriate.  The list of notified editors included about a dozen who supported inclusion last time.  Even when we disagree I've learned to put stock in your opinions.  That's why I'm having some trouble understanding why you feel this was an improper RfC.  Springee (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You 'Just overturned a proposal that was going against you on grounds that pinging a wikiproject in was canvassing and then, with the restatement of that proposal, you pinged a huge list of individual editors; including some who only ever come to these discussions to block the inclusion of sustained reliable notable information regarding the use of firearms based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT - so yes, I'm feeling a bit frustrated with your behaviour on that page currently. I do try really hard to be a good Wikipedian, and to consider the needs of the project over my own (often strong) political views. But I do expect the same comportment of others, and I think you over-stepped this time. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, again I want to emphasis that I do think you are a very level headed editor so if you are feeling this way then there is something to your concerns. Hopefully some more information will address them.  Yes, I did feel that dlthewave's efforts were improper because they were ignoring the previous RfC and yes, I still have canvasing concerns regarding the gun politics project.  So what changed?  Well dlthewave reached out to an admin who said I was wrong on two counts.  First, the admin felt that the project notification wasn't canvasing.  Second the admin felt that since we had the 2018 RfC related to the project Firearms guidelines, that some of the 2017 arguments were no longer valid.  Based on that information I decided to open a formal RfC.  I did notify the gun politics project even though I have my concerns with that group.  I also notified the previous RfC editors since we are relitigating nearly the exact same content.  I personally think that if you are creating a new RfC that may overturn a previous decision those who weighed in last time should always be notified.  Else we might have a say a large RfC resulting a decision to go East then, at a later time, a small group of editors holds a small RfC with little notification that decides to go West.  In that case the opinions of a large number of editors was just thrown out by a small group.  I don't want to pester you on your talk page if you feel this discussion is pointless.  Do you think notifying the previous RfC participants was improper? Springee (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case I think it was, at the very least, inadvisable considering what happened previously with dlthewave. I'd suggest you might want to consult the admin who was involved for the previous discussion and get them to weigh in off-page and away from the heat of the discussion page to see if they concur with me. I am aware that a strict reading of WP:CANVAS allows contacting past RfC participants, but I think that the extenuating circumstances in this case - your dispute with dlthewave about their notification of the noticeboard, the discretionary sanctions on the page and the weak Wikipolicy basis for excluding this information make it at best borderline canvassing. After all, you're attempting to use this new RfC to preserve the old consensus on page that excluded this notable and sustained content and it's been a year. A year in which somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty more people died in mass shootings in the United States. And since we both know how the previous RfC played out (no consensus) it's kind of tendentious to try and make history repeat itself here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't read this the same way as you. That said, this evening I will try to contact an involved admin and ask for an opinion.  There were two dlthewave issues and I feel I've addressed both.  The first was if notifying the project gun politics group was canvasing.  An admin said it wasn't and when I opened this RfC I did notify them.  The second was if we should relitigate a prior RfC.  My opinion was nothing had changed that would warrant opening a new RfC.  The admin disagreed so I opened a new RfC.  I don't agree with the wikipolicy question as you see it.  First, I would point to the closing of the F-600/Oklahoma City bombing RfC (I mention it in my Survey reply).  In that case  the closing admin noted that the inclusion/exclusion of the material from that article didn't come down to a policy question and thus the opinions of editors, especially uninvolved editors was clutch in the closing.  I don't see how that wouldn't apply here.  Second, yes, the previous RfC closed in a no consensus but several editors and the admin argued that the previous consensus was based, in part, on a Project Firearms guideline that has changed.  If that is the case then the same editors can change their minds.  If an editor decided based only on the guidelines then they won't have another argument for exclusion and my change their mind.  If they have other reasons in addition to the guidelines then they can add those arguments.  Anyway, I'm probably rambling and I don't want to wear out what welcome I have.  If you want me to stop please let me know.  Springee (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would reiterate is that I think it would be wise for you to go back to the admin and ask them for further advice on this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Xinjiang conflict
Hey, I noticed your Ürümqi barnstar, and since that page is easily the best Uyghur-related article on here, I thought I might as well mention that there's an ongoing RfC on the Xinjiang conflict page if that sounds interesting. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ReconditeRodent, I follow the WikiProject China page notifications so I am aware of any China related RfC that gets listed there. Although I might have a look at the RfC, I'd caution you that pinging specific editors on the basis of a barnstar might be treated as canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre
An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Come now, I already participated in that review. You know that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know you have participated in the "Requested Move". The "Move Review" is different, it is to review the move that has been made. I objected it because there was ongoing discussion and the voting has not finished. We're asking whether the "Requested Move" should be re-opened. STSC (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Commiserations
Sadly, I've had plenty of experience of this guy.Deb (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw a bit of that. I've had it with them; I came to the page trying to be a peacemaker and they immediately attacked me. And their attacks just got more intense until they got me upset. It's just trolling - plain and simple. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comparison
I have made an edit similar to one of your recent ones and am hoping it won't fall foul of the same article creator. Deb (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Told ya! Deb (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock at work
Obvious sock at work here. Give him enough rope... Deb (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Marx
What was the problem with my edits? Began workING, English grammar. Kapeter77 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel your grammar edits improved the grammar of the article - but they did add extraneous particles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'I dont feel' is NOT an argument. What was wrong????Kapeter77 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop bugging me with this trivial complaint. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The suffix -ing creates a present participle (not particle) used to describe an action that is ongoing. Changing "began work" to "began working" implies that Mr. Marx started the work that he is still doing presently, which of course cannot be correct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sleeper?
There is an editor who has been around for a while and has suddenly become active in recent days. Interestingly, he had very few contributions on German Wikipedia until recently. It may be a coincidence, but I'm keeping an eye on him. Deb (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

iww and kkk
well we've done overlapping edits. Here's what i wrote at iww.talk--there is a very long discussion on this same topic at www-talk: The Ku Klux Klan first reached Oklahoma in 1920 and Tulsa in August 1921. on 1921 see  section 77 for elaborate detail by leading specialists. The 1917 group did NOT call itself the KKK (the newspaper headline writer added that--the reporter did not use the kkk term) it called itself the "Knight of Liberty." There were many such groups under various names. they were not connected to 1st or 2nd kkk klan., (the newspaper headline says it was like the at kkk--they did not know about the 2nd kkk yet). Wiki rules warn against trying to interpret primary sources like the newspaper headline--wiki insists on reliable secondary sources, which do not link iww and kkk in Oklahoma. see KKK talk page for more discussion. see also    Bottom line: there is no RS support for linking iww and kkk. Rjensen (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Addressing Accusations of my "Bias Leanings"
Hello Simonm223, I got your message on my talk page and I wanted to take a minute to defend and explain myself on the situation. That wasn't what happened. It was a notice of an ongoing discussion for a cryptozoology related article and I felt that the members of that WikiProject needed to know what was happening with that article and the changes that were being discussed. "Biased leanings" is completely uncalled for and never the intention. Merely to have a calm discussion on what should be done before moving forward. It was after all, a part of the WikiProject Cryptozoology. It would have been unfair to NOT involve them in the discussion. Involving other users that weren't involved with those topic articles would have been SPAMMING. BloodofFox has been SLANDERING my name in order to degrade my suggestions for a while now. Everytime I post my thought on a discussion in regards to that particular topic, he almost always brings this up in order to detract from my suggestions and thought in the guise that I'm just another "crypto fanatic" He has gone so far as to remove one of my postings with this exact statement. I have NEVER tried something like this before and have ALWAYS respected the rules and guidelines on this site. Doing something like What He's accusing me of is not something that I would ever intentionally do. My posting off site was for a good intention so that we could turn around the sorry state of near inactivity of that wikiproject in a legitimate fashion, adhering to this sites guidelines and standards. I didn't know that it would have started a massive feud that's existed ever since then. I'm so sorry that it was mistaken as such.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not in the mood to field excuses for canvassing. Please just stop doing it and then this won't be an issue. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And for the record, the decorum of civility is the part of Wikipedia that worries me the least, what with all the various nazis, trolls and POV pushers who fall under the auspices of WP:ANYONECANEDIT. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You're funny
How am I supposed to get consensus, if you close the thread about the topic? People agreeing with me need a thread where they can post that they agree with me --84.177.94.49 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The point was that it was evident to me, as an editor familiar with the page but uninvolved in that discussion, that you would not achieve consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

General sanctions alert
Retimuko (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

List of political ideologies
I'm sorry, but I thought it was necessary and I just correctly reordered it by alphabetic order, made it more uniform and standardized the political internationals to look the same like the list as well as doing the same for the regional part of nationalism which was the only one in which it was not just written the country's name (instead of "Ideology in country's name", there is just the country's name, which is what everything was like, expect nationalism). Unsourced material, really? There is no source for each ideology, beside two sources for Slovene Nazism (Siskoism). Since you said they may have some merits, please I would like to known which addictions were wrong because I do not want to loss all the time it took me to do that without even adding some improvements I made, or improve the page.--95.246.152.199 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly it was hard to tell because the re-ordering was so significant. I would suggest breaking out the edits into digestible chunks and putting some edit summaries on them so that those of us who watch this page for fringe nonsense don't go cross-eyed trying to sort everything out. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Persecution of Christians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr.  K.  17:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted once after somebody reverted me with a false claim that my editing was disruptive. Take your scare tag and be off with you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have reverted 3 times on that article today. Things can be solved on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good form Ktrimi991. There is nothing more cowardly that to attempt to taunt an editor from the talkpage of an editor he would be very reluctant to visit, since they recently came in conflict with him/her. But seeing that you went as far as reverting to restore your baiting, which had the effect of pinging me again, I thought I would give you some advice: Cease your WP:BAITING attempts, and don't bother me again. These are low-level WP:HARASSMENT tactics, and, should you continue them, your number may be called sometime in the near future. My apologies to Simonm223 for this intrusion, but taunting, bullying and harassment have a tendency to grow if not tackled head on.  Dr.   K.  22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * [], []. I make that two reverts by Simon. Not close to breaching wp:3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I was quite surprised at how fast they went to templated warnings here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok guys, I'd ask that people take their dispute to some other venue. Although and I got off on the wrong foot, I think our specific dispute that led to this thread has concluded, and this is a situation that satisfies me. I may not shy away from disagreements on Wikipedia (considering my main topic areas are far left politics, far right politics, China, and religion I've seen my fair share) but I also don't go out of my way to continue conflicts after the subject matter dispute is resolved, and I consider that to be the case here. I don't like it when a dispute over a specific subject matter issue causes a long-standing disagreement to spill onto my page and I really don't like third parties reverting content on my user talk page except in cases of unambiguous vandalism. As such I'd ask  and  in specific to take their dispute to somewhere else. It doesn't involve me and I don't particularly want to be involved.  thank you for your politeness with regard to this momentary unpleasantness. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

AGF
If you want to quit publishing assumptions about my motivations and alleged "sour grapes" and instead pursue a path of least drama, that'd be super. Thanks. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do that when you quit tendentiously trying to remove a legitimate characterization of a right wing bigot from her entry. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That implies a pretty severe misunderstanding of WP:AGF on your part, but it's also a serious accusation. What are the top 3 of my diffs that you find to be in violation of WP:TE? VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Gab Link
Thanks for the link addition. Reviewing the text though it looks like Kessler was affiliated with the Proud Boys, not Clark. If we are going to maintain the sentence as constructed we would need a link about Clark's affiliations rather than an affiliation of an affiliation. Squatch347 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It says Clark attended Kessler's initiation. That doesn't validate him being a member but it speaks to affiliation as I am assuming that the United States has not degraded to the point where proud boy initiation ceremonies are mandatory attendance. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor does attending an initiation mean that you are affiliated with a group. I attended a friend's initiation into DeMolay, it doesn't mean I'm affiliated with the Mason's though, right? Squatch347 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning. Attend a white supremacist organization's initiation rites = associated with that white supremacist organization. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * tl;dr he's yet another nazi giving the thumbs up to a bunch of milk-chugging nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But the sentence doesn't say "associated" with in some kind of broad sense. It says affiliated, which implies a direct relationship the link you provided does not claim.  Squatch347 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

venezuela's president.
Dude, stop reverting. Juan Guaidó was just named interim president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.155.112.1 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Furthermore your edits are not supported by reliable sources. They're just more tired vandalism. Please feel free to show yourself out. This conversation is over. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

New user making personal attacks against you
Hi - I came across this while on patrol earlier. Not sure who this might be, but it seems like they're familiar with you even though you've never interacted with that account... Aspening (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a persistent troll. It's very difficult for this troll to contact me directly so they instead randomly vandalize articles and then tag me in hopes that'll get their harassment through filters. Admins are aware and stomp this particular individual-with-no-life-and-a-huge-grievance-over-my-part-in-the-collapse-of-their-ghbh-game whenever they pop up. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry!
I thought it had to be removed once we had the vote result. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a result from the merge discussion on the discussion at all. If I missed where somebody had closed and adjudicated the discussion you have my apology. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)