This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues climate change articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles COVID-19, broadly construed They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

2014 ‒ 2017 2018 ‒ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ‒ ...

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[reply]

Also, "Philo" is probably a more reasonable shortening of the user name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D'oh! and D'oh! Springee (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

Wow! Thanks! I had no idea it was that easy! Springee (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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[reply]

They posted the tag that was the subject of recent edits [1][2] Springee (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]