User talk:Springee/Archive 2

AFP IP revert
Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't realize that but good to know. Given the very political nature of the article I'm always suspicious of IP editors that add one line paragraphs. It's good to have a second set of eyes review things.  Springee (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - the WOLF  child  20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos []. Thanks for letting me know. Springee (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE.Springee (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA poll
The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;

"To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013."

If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) , this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP!
We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather --Limpscash (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FedEx
Hi, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.

Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , in the edit tag I noted the material was WP:Undue. An accusation of advocacy can been seen as not WP:AGF.  Remember that RS doesn't mean sufficient Weight.  I will add a NPOV yeah to the second when I get a chance to add the appropriate material to the talk page.  We both should be discussing the edits there vs here. Springee (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI
BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - the WOLF  child  07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! I just noticed you already rec'd the same notice above. Oh well. FYI still applies... - the WOLF  child  07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , no problem my friend. I was confused at first but saw the IP address.  It's a troublesome IP editor from down under.  In going to request some IP blocks shortly. Thanks for the note. Springee (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a block would be good. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.

Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Springee (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And, another one, too. User:AlainaP14.  Persistent sock puppeteer.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification on Wikiproject Firearms
Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) , sure thing. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD socks
There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. --Neil N  talk to me 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics post-1932
- these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC) , understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors.Springee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock
I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock--RAF910 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , there have been a number of those socks recently. I pinged NeilN a few times. It's clearly wack a mole. Springee (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, he has only been blocked for 31 hours, so he'll be back.--RAF910 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(Removed)
 * Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --Neil N  talk to me 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Emails
Hi, please do not post the content of emails that other users have sent you on-wiki. I have redacted the text and hidden the content under RD5. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni, sorry, I will remember that in the future. Given the accusations being leveled at me I felt it was significant.  Note I didn't include the name of the editor who sent the email.  Springee (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I talked about it with an oversighter, and we've both emailed ArbCom to ask for advice. In general, the best policy anytime there is off-wiki communication is to email it to the committee. They have the ability to look handle potentially private information that other users do not have. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gun use
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Question
Just out of curiosity, was the spacing on this edit deliberate? I ask because the the top half that you added an hour earlier looks like a separate, unsigned edit now, and the bottom half you added later, but with your earlier signature, is now highlited, but It's not clear why. FYI - the WOLF  child  04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia effect
Hello Springee, in order not to have to much details on the RFC page some edits / changes which can show how it works:

a australian ip eliminates a misinformation in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=831764809

BilCat reverted in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831764809

Stewartsoda adds a reference in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831817374

just so fine to have reference ... what can we do?

Stewartsoda adds a reference in Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=831872773

Bingo. Self referencing by Wikipedia completed. Now we traced one single point ... how much more cases of wikipedia effect are existing?

A single case is not the problem ... systemically sowing invented facts without proves over years ... that is a real problem. People whose mission it is to distort perception just laugh at how easy it is. Making a hoax disappearing out of the world is much harder. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think it's worse than that. I think the HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article.  It's easy to find pre-2012 references to the AR-15 but not the SLR.  Springee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Exact that's what I mean: " HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article." Following this HuffPo could be identified als non reliable source for firearms info? See one HuffPo more found in Talk:2014_Moncton_shootings. Now for the RFC ... I don't know what to do with this thing. It seems clear so far that the proposed section is based on wrong information ... hm ... embarrassing somehow. But how to handle this RFC now ?? And how to to harvest results for similar RFC's in future? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Finally I found a source mentioning 3 guns! "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun" + " He changed weapons this time taking out of the boot a semi-automatic point 308 F.N. or commonly called an S.L.R. or self-loading rifle. This was a military style weapon, he had taken that with him along with ample ammunition," mentioned in court. Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) Hm ... for me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons, as f.e. given in List_of_Colt_AR-15_%26_M16_rifle_variants or this    --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Conerning sources/RFC i just leave this here because i'm afraid it is too much info in one step. Simon Chapman: Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 1743320310 (275 Pages),(read online). --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Concerning the "Wikipedia effect" and the IP I left comment at User_talk:NeilN. Perhaps you find the info useful. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENY
You've reverted a number of edits by sockpuppets on the basis of WP:DENY. The DENY essay advocates reverting vamdalism immediately and without fanfare, however I don't see anything about routinely deleting content simply because it was contributed by a sock. I've come across a few of these edits    that are potentially constructive and certainly not blatant vandalism. In particular, I would consider this to be a well-written and helpful addition to the project.

Is there a policy or common practice that supports this type of wholesale reversion? I don't often deal with sockpuppets and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me. I understand that you're dealing with a persistent sockmaster but just want to make sure that we're not losing valuable content in the process. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question..." --Neil N  talk to me 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks NeilN. I'm going to have to change the tag from DENY to BLOCKBANDIFF.  Too bad DENY is so much easier to write... Springee (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably use WP:EVADE. It has the same thrust: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, I now understand the reason for the reverts. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please ...
Hello Springee, please have a look at Gun_laws_in_Australia. I did my best. Minor faults on talkpages can happen ... but it should not in Articles ;-) Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is a lot of overhead and "fairytales" in other Parts of history - if you can shorten some of it ??
 * , thanks for the ping. I'll take a look but honestly it's an area I know very little about beyond it getting mentioned as part of the US gun control debate.  In general I'm going to try to stay out of those articles.  Even the NRA article is on the overly political side for me.  I have an interest in the gun control debates and arguments but at some level it becomes too much to fight over every article detail.  Springee (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah Ok I understand. Normally I also keep my hands off those articles. It's just around this RFC etc. and this new Wikiproject WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. I thought it would be somehow nice to show good will for collaboration. Hm (idea) why not ask a collegue from there. Thx --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * just fyi: --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussions at 2A talk page
I would like for you to comment at ongoing discussions at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think you're input would be valuable. SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

just some classic music
Hi Springee, I can not follow this discussions which in my opion are almost self repeating. Some parts I have read ... almost fatigued. For you as a gift this classic music. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock
Please see Talk:Handgun page for another 96.68.58.179 sock--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind...NeilN just blocked him.--RAF910 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indent gap
MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , did screw up an indent somewhere (recently)? Springee (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I was confused You included a space before your reply at RSN, but it was needed as you were "outdent"ing. I meant to inform the editor after you. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How to do the star thing
Good question. Instructions are here: Barnstars Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas
Happy holidays.2018 Holidays (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hue Dee
I’ve just noticed a certain decline in the quality (if not the volume) of the socking. Hadn’t been following him for a bit. When exactly did it get totally doolally like it is now? Qwirkle (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * }, it was very recent. I'm confused by it since HughD's sock behavior was very consistent for a long time.  Not sure why there was a shift.  I'm still confused by some of this.  In the SPI archive you can see that in early December I was confused by the view that HD and 72bikers were the same editor.  Anyway, it's quite possible that HD just decided that their normal efforts were getting reverted without question so attacking those who otherwise would have been "on their side" was the plan.  There might have been a bigger plan but I also might be giving HD too much created.  It's possible it was just to have fun and stir the pot.  Springee (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * speaking of pots, potted another one: user:Lifeclime. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

AE discussion notice
An arbitration enforcement request concerning you has been opened here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm already at the word-count limit, so I'd rather not get into a back & forth. I'd be happy to discuss later. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, I'm likely over the word count limit. However, I do find it very frustrating that you have made accusations but then when I ask you aren't backing them.  I can see how you feel the "forum shopping" statement is incivil.  I hope you can see things from the other side.  We had a quality RfC with a large number of participants.  It was being ignored.  Would you be frustrated in a similar situation?
 * You have accused me of POV pushing but I can acknowledge you did that on my talk page, not on an article page. One of the great frustrations I have with things like ARE is that often it takes quite a bit of effort to lay out a timeline to explain why accusations are wrong.  I dealt with this a while back when an editor accused me of all sorts of things related to the F-650 and Chevy Caprice crime inclusion discussions.  To show the accusations were wrong I had to try to lay out a timeline of when things happened to show that at the time the alleged transgression occurred events were as I claimed.  Anyway, even if it goes a bit over the line I would appreciate some, a reply to my concerns even if it's simply to say not enough space to adequately reply.
 * Finally, what do you think of my question regarding reciprocity of weight? I don't mean, do you agree or not, but do you think some sort of decision on the matter might help stop so much of the back and forth?  Springee (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the matter to close, now @ ARCA -- would be happy to discuss then. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. This chain of ARE->ARCA discussions is quite interesting but I also want to stay out of it (other than my comment about Dlthewave's warning).  Springee (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning
As a result of the recent arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Withdrawn, see below.   Sandstein   22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

, how do I go about protesting this warning. I was not accused of any of the above so I'm not sure why I would be sanctioned/warned for any of the above. Springee (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein   11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , rather than start with an appeal, would you help me understand what I was warned for? I do get the idea of "kids are making noise so all get the same punishment" but I'm not sure what I did wrong which then leads to the bigger issue, what shouldn't I do in the future.  The warning noted POLEMIC and attacking/vilifying other editors/groups of editors.  I don't believe I did either of those.  Thanks for you thoughts (and I do get that sometimes it's easier to mildly punish all vs deal with the minutia).  Springee (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. To be clear, the problems here on the part of all involved are rather mild as these things go; hence my decision not to impose sanctions. Still, your statement "...there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time" evokes, in my view, a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to content disputes that we particularly don't need in the already tense topic areas subject to WP:AC/DS. Of course, it is a reality that in many topic areas there are groups of editors who share the same point of view and seek to make Wikipedia reflect it, in violation of the expectation of WP:NPOV that each editor should edit neutrally rather than to promote a point of view. Much of WP:AC/DS exists to address such problems. But, even in the face of what may seem to you organized POV-pushing, the expected response of experienced editors is not to form an opposing group to promote the opposite POV, but to seek consensus to arrive at a neutral wording and to resolve disagreements civilly through discussion in each individual case. Basically: two wrongs don't make a right; don't fight fire with fire. Yes, I know, it's easier said than done, but that's what I understand, based on our policies, our community expects of us.  Sandstein   21:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the reply. I definitely agree that statements like that can be problematic per battleground. But that was a statement in reply to my post, not one I made.[] Springee (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the case. I apologize; I should have read the enforcement request more carefully. I'm withdrawing the warning above and in the log.  Sandstein   22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I was scratching my head as well when I read that. While perhaps not explicitly forbidden, it's certainly not standard practice to open an AE report on three editors at the same time. I skimmed through AE archives and did not find bundled reports. The standard AE report form also deals with reporting users individually. This is undue process in my view, because if there is AE action, it should be judged individually and not collectively. You should mention this in your appeal. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate you thanking me via WP:Echo for the revert at the Human sexual activity article. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Human sexual activity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem. I saw a number of other edits by that editor that seem questionable to me but honestly, that's one of those areas that I don't think I want to wade into even though I do see advocacy issues.  Springee (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Car classifications
Hi Springfree. Just letting you know that I'm not trying to remove content about station wagons, just have it located in the right article. Station wagon is a body style, so (like sedans, coupes, convertibles, etc) it is covered in car body styles instead of car classifications. Having it in both is unnecessary duplication and can lead to WP:FORK. If you prefer the version of the summary that's in the Car Classification article, feel free to move it to the Car Body Style article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues
You appear to have just put a notice on the page of User:Snoog on his Talk page. This appears to be his 3rd incident over five days, first with Peter Navarro, then Mitch McConnell with another editor, and now on your notice to him regarding another page he is editing. Did you see this? CodexJustin (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

, this is the edit I found problematic []. I don't know the backdrop other than this edit focuses on the editor and contains a personal attack. I certainly disagree that the article is worse for the other editor being there. If you were referring to the other comments on Snoog's talk page I wasn't involved so I didn't want to comment. Springee (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

His referring to you as 'creepy' has to be unpleasant. He did something similar to me on the Talk page for Peter Navarro with aspersions over the weekend. Several editors there believe that the Peter Navarro article has Quotefarm problems which need some tending. Any thoughts on how to make progress on the Quotefarm issues in that article? CodexJustin (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

, the comment wasn’t directed at me. I just find it very problematic. As for the quote farm, well I don’t see an obvious answer. This is something a number of editors are guilty of. More eyes and consensus to oppose that type of text, even if the general material is due, is a first line answer. That doesn’t always work. Ideally would be policy or guideline that could be cited. Less effective is an essay. Take a look at this discussion [] Springee (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That was really an impressive link with admin participating. To bring this into a single point for the article, this is the comment that was made regarding Peter Navarro which stated: "Views on trade - the first para looks OK, but the next 3 paras seem a quotefarm just collection of critics that are UNDUE and just is non-BLP, nothing to do with him or affecting his life, from Markbassett". Can this Quoteform be fixed since other editors are requesting it? CodexJustin (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

, for what it's worth I feel this comment [] has the appearance of not being motivated by the topic. Springee (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexatious indeed...
and that's that... Buffs (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I felt the agreement with "vexatious" unfair. There was simply too much evidence to ignore.  Also, the tban of the other editor was not a factor other than it help validate my own suspicions.  6Years acted like I only talk about the sock aspect.  In fact outside of user talk pages the only time I mentioned it was the one post at ANI and never on article talk pages.  Yet another vexatious charge against those who were suspicious/right ;) Springee (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes...we're SO terrible... #sarcsm Buffs (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving your comment on RSN
Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I've moved one of your comments here, since you seemed to be replying the main heading and not the subheading. Please undo this if you oppose it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an area that is outside my knowledge base. Springee (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability
Hi Springee, I haven't read through the discussions completely, but thought that these and the associated discussions at WP:BLPN & WP:NPOVN might be an example of what was discussed at WT:V - Ryk72 talk 05:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) , thanks for the suggestion. I've been slow getting back to that discussion and I haven't figured out if the Jack Posobiec page works well or not. I guess the bigger issue is I'm not overly familiar with the material. Other than the questionable claim of "internet troll" in Wiki voice I really have no knowledge of the subject. I would welcome advice or suggestions that you might have. Springee (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not "in the West", so, prior to seeing the BLPN discussion, was not familiar with the subject at all. But there was something in one of the discussions that resonated with the discussion at WT:V. I spent a bit of time searching and think it might have been this at WP:NPOVN: The content you proposed on the talk page does not include any reliable sources to assert non-association with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, merely Posobiec's own denials. Your attempts to equate the significance of Posobiec's denials with the claims of apparently every reliable source represents a false balance. On review, however, this seems a minor aspect of the discussions there and at the article Talk page. The discussions also seem highly politicised so it might be a muddier example than desired to clearly demonstrate the points raised at WT:V. - Ryk72 talk 04:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw this and thought I'd leave a note. I took a look at the discussion at WT:V and it seems to me that the concerns I have over sources are in line with the concerns expressed there. I'm new, so my attempts to contribute to the discussion were pretty much ignored. I've never had anyone attempt to address anything with substance. My last attempt to describe a problem is diff'd here. The consensus seemes to be threefold -- 1: "The sources are reliable" [without addressing any concerns]; 2: "The status quo will be maintained"; 3: "Go away" I have learned a lot about policies that can be used to get one banned in various fashions by trying to raise RS issues. If you provide too little detail, you're dismissed outright; if you provide any amount of real detail, then every possible conduct policy will be cited to you to make you go away and the issues raised still won't be addressed. I'm done. Good luck, and best wishes. Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is an issue which looks wrong to me but I don't understand the subject enough to want to weigh in. However, you might think about how that could be used as an example in the WP:V discussion.  I would be happy to help clarify thoughts on the subject but since I really don't know the subject I don't want to use it as my example.  Springee (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I may condense my argument and bring it up at WP:V. The very short version is that a term is applied to the subject and 3 sources are cited: One is a single passing mention; one has the term only in the headline; one is very clearly labeled as an analysis piece and is written as an opinion piece. The sources are nonetheless insisted on as RS in order to keep the chosen term. Other sources used in the subject's page provide a full description and a rebuttal of the term from the subject, but including anything about that is refused on the grounds of ABOUTSELF and UNDUE. Seems very similar to what you were discussing. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about Climate change. It seems that the number ofarticles with discretionary sanctions is endless. A cynic might think that such were a way of controlling and directing outcomes. I don't expect to stick my nose in much, at my age whatever happens, happens and will have zero effect on me.Oldperson (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closures
How do you get someone to close an RfC? There are a couple that we've both participated in that have been open for months. What the heck? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , look at the AN/RfC page. [] Springee (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad they're listed there, but why do you suppose it's taking so long?Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , everything here is based on volunteers. Many people don't want to get into a contentious RfC closing so it just doesn't happen.  Springee (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm. I've seen quite a few prompt and contentious closures. I'm afraid that other explanations do occur to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)