Jump to content

User talk:Springee: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: MassMessage delivery
→‎Murray: new section
Tags: Reverted New topic
Line 308: Line 308:
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div>
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 -->

== Murray ==

is this is the hill you want to fight about? Relegating what he's known for to the last paragraph so that it's buried? [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 01:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:29, 16 April 2024


The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi Springee. At one point in your ANI filing, you use the word "antisymmetric/", where I assume you mean "antisemitic". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Philo" is probably a more reasonable shortening of the user name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! and D'oh! Springee (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vizorblaze

Sorry, I was asleep. I've been meaning to look at that editor but just to busy elsewhere. Too big a watchlist. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. But Philomathes does seem to play down antisemitism. The Spotlight, Liberty Lobby, etc are almost defined by their antisemitic views and that should be made clear in their articles.. Bill Buckley, (a nice guy, I met him a couple of times) and National Review (which I disagree with but respect) were right in saying so. Yes, Spotlight was a lot about anti-globalism, a useful code word, that's all. In cases like these we should call a spade a spade. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. I didn't realize admins were allowed to sleep. Is that a new policy? ( :D )
I'm generally not familiar with any of those sources so I can't say for certain. I do think Wikipedia editors are, as a group, too quick to apply labels etc to things rather than laying out the evidence and letting readers see the obvious conclusions. I guess that's something that is easy to do when dealing with 1930s European facists but harder when dealing with topics that never got much coverage one way or the other. Looking into Philo's behavior I see an editor who is acting in good faith but is totally not reading the room. Once they have presumed themselves to be right they seem to assume the rules are on their side. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy might also apply here. I hope they will tone it down and understand wiki etiquette quickly. Take care! (courtesy ping @Doug Weller ) Springee (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think labels are fine if they are well-sourced. And leads should contain labels where they are significant to the subject. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

Information icon You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude, no reason for this as it's already covered by my BLP and AP2 awareness tags at the top of the page. Springee (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Cole and TheTranarchist

I have started a discussion about TheTranarchist's editing. I would clean up the Chloe Cole article myself, but it seems pointless until the root issue has been dealt with. It may be better to just start over. Round and rounder (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your comment at ANI

Hey! just letting you know I moved the message you left at the transanarchist ANI out of the "asking for closure" section. I think it's a good idea to leave that section empty except for thetransanarchist's comment and comments about closing the discussion. My reasoning being that if everyone starts leaving a summary of their opinion there we'll probably be here for another two novels. :P --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What article?

You left me a message to go to the Talk page before reverting in an unnamed article. There are perhaps millions of Wikipedia articles. I may have reverted edits in thousands of them. Can you manage to be a bit more specific? Activist (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Springee. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Good day, mate. Have you never archived your talk page? That reminds me, I better do my own. starship.paint (exalt) 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

starship.paint, LOL! Yeah, I've been meaning to but I honestly haven't taken the effort to figure out how. Is there an easy guide that I need to find? Springee (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks! I had no idea it was that easy! Springee (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I know how to do it manually. But I have forgotten how to do it automatically. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you manually create each archive page? Does it automatically copy the dated content into each archive? Springee (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do it manually but there must be an automatic way, because article talk pages are automatic. See below. starship.paint (exalt) 15:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you're welcome. I suspect automatic archives have something to do with User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. starship.paint (exalt) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver if you want to manually archive threads. Works on article/user talk pages, noticeboards... starship.paint (exalt) 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and feel free to rearrange your archives as you see fit. I don't know what you prefer. starship.paint (exalt) 15:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any preference. Honestly, being picky at this point would be like being mad that your neighbor organized your mess of a closet but didn't organize it the way you would have done it if you had done it any time in the last decade! I really appreciate the help! Springee (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klete Keller

Hi if possible please keep an eye on the Klete Keller lead, a vandal is trying to revert it again. It has been proven multiple times "convicted felon" is a contentious label and not appropriate for a lead sentence. Thank You. 172.56.161.216 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ugh the vandal is at it again. what is wrong with this guy. you were even mentioned on his talk page under the topic "stop edit warring"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ws_sideman#Stop_edit_warring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Klete_Keller#Recent_block_of_TheWikiholic 109.68.162.161 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post truth politics

Why are you pinging someone from over 5 years ago that is not currently involved in this discussion? That seems a bit much ie WP:CANVASy. Let's try to be patient and work together there. DN (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They posted the tag that was the subject of recent edits [1][2] Springee (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it was still over 5 years ago. I see you and Viriditas are having a tough time getting on the same page, but I don't see that as a reason for bringing in a currently uninvolved editor just because they might take your side. Call me crazy. DN (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Wait up, this looks like its from 2023. Is bigguyalien the editor you pinged? What am I missing here? DN (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Award

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo

This edit seems a bit beneath you. Please consider striking. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DN, you are right and thanks for calling me out on that. I've changed it. My intent was to describe the result but that certainly could be viewed as a PA on an editor. I hope "crazy" makes it clear I'm referring to the result. I also appreciate that you reached out. Hope you are doing well my friend. Springee (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to drop by to clarify what I meant when I mentioned the Hunter Biden laptop article. I assumed you were familiar with it, but I was clearly incorrect. It's a similar situation to the Ngo page, where there is a weak and challenged consensus. With the way the consensus works here sometimes you'll have to end up accepting article content you don't agree with. I'm sure you're familiar with that fact, at least. Sometimes the best thing to do is just let it go for a while.
At the very least you should try to back off long engagements with editors that you're not going to convince to your point of view. The chance of attracting uninvolved input decreases with every level of indentation in the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assumed something like what you described but I generally stay away from those articles other than my one suggestion to err on the side of not including negative content about H Biden. I do wish more editors would err on the side of being charitable to the BLP subject as a mater of principle regardless of which side of the political fence they sit on. Springee (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism, OED vs. Wikipedia

Hi, Springee. Thank you for your recent contributions to the discussion on the Lindsay page. Following your research on CM, you mentioned still being somewhat confused about the term. It's not surprising, given the significant disparities between OED and Wikipedia on the subject. Building on the sources you provided, I've initiated a new discussion on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I hope you will consider chiming in and letting me know if you find merit in the proposed changes. I value your input. XMcan (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Masterhatch (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for all the work you do. Masterhatch (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party article

Springee I'm confused and surprised at your position on this issue. Should we exclude mentions of White supremacy from certain parts of the Democratic Party (United States) article as well? DN (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic” is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DN. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. Springee (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SamuelRiv and right-wing populism

I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child pbp 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way. pbp 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than to deny good faith

As you did at Talk:Andy Ngo[4] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Wikipedia says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. Springee (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. TarnishedPathtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPathtalk 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPathtalk 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.
In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. TarnishedPathtalk 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murray

is this is the hill you want to fight about? Relegating what he's known for to the last paragraph so that it's buried? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&oldid=1219147805"