User talk:Springee/Archive 1

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)

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)


 * , 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 [] 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)

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) , 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)

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)

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

, 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.,. 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 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)

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. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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 ([], [])).  Regardless of if we have proof that this is HughD, the SPI discussed here [] 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, [].  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 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)

, 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)

Your pal HughD is back...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 (talk) 19:37, 16 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)

Another one?
User:Hugo Head ? Odd timing, and whelped just before the latest Hughsock was. Dunno, though. Might be pure coincidence. Anmccaff (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC) , do you hvae a link? BTW, did you see this one? [] Springee (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Hugo+Head&users=PrefectF&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Note the harrypotter crossover between the IP and Hugo Head, and the PrefectF/Ford Prefect connection there. (Wasn't Hugh a Hitchhikers fan, or am I thinking of some other troll?) Anmccaff (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't recall the HHGTG connection. I can see what you are thinking there but I'm not seeing the editorial evidence.  PF however was rather obvious.Springee (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know if Wiki has any on-board stylometric analyzers? The language of Ford P there is vintage Hugh, except for the "our project" bit, which he's managed, finally, to ditch. Anmccaff (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

, there isn't a question regarding Hugh and Ford P. All you have to do is look at the complaints he just posted. Some of those are nearly verbatim from his arguments made during the Pinto times. I bet large sections are copy paste. Even if they aren't the arguments are clearly the same. EC is a bit different because this isn't a new account settling the same old scores. The behavior is similar in terms of formatting. The part that really gives that one away is HughD created a template that, in two years, he was the only one to use it. Then a brand new editor uses it 4 times in one month. Hmmm... Hopefully the block hammer will happen quickly so the Pinto article can get through the GA review. There are some things that need a bit of work. Springee (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, the same stilted style, the same subject, and even damned similar wording. I've run into people, some of them admins, who are tone deaf to that, unfortunately.  Also, Hugh ain't the sharpest knife, but he's finally learned to drop some of his tell-tale mannerisms, and it's gonna get less obvious over times that it's him. Anmccaff (talk) 03:43, 25 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)

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