Hello, Stallion55347, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calidum 14:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you know I was planning on moving the RfC on "Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary" to an outside resource for dispute resolution this weekend. Based on your feedback in the RfC I'm having second thoughts. I wanted to ask your opinions on whether I should continue to pursue an outside resource for dispute resolution or continue with the current RfC and work towards building a consesus? Mine is that I feel like the conversation has stalled and that there has been little desire to move towards a consensus? What do you all think? XOR'easter, Springee, 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 Stallion55347 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't any better place to have the conversation than where it's been happening already. If it looks like a consensus isn't going to form, then it's probably best to leave the text as-is. However, there's no maximum or minimum duration for an RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is obviously no point in me babbling to the people who already disagree with me, but I think it would be reasonable to wait for additional editors to join the discussion, since closing it now would result in nothing productive. Bill Williams 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• XOR'easter, thanks for the feedback. The link you provided was helpful too. My concern about achieving consensus is that there's little incentive for those who want to keep the statement intact to negotiate in good faith because by standing their ground they "win" and nothing changes. I realize those are the rules Wikipedia has asked us to abide by, but it allows for some disingenuous editors put up roadblocks to consensus building.

• Bill Williams, thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate your passion around the topic and I know we both agree that the line in question should be removed, but the fact it, there's little chance of that happening. Are you willing to negotiate in good faith for a more reasonably toned message in the lede? At this point that’s the most anyone would be able to accomplish. Stallion55347 (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfC fails, then I would want the babble in the lead about random minor topics that a few minor articles were written on, e.g. asbestos, which currently states "The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos" to be condensed down to just:

"The Journal has published opinion articles that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple health and environmental issues." Bill Williams 08:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But again, this information is UNDUE for the lead for numerous reasons as I have repeatedly stated, so until the RfC is closed I would want to hold off on any compromises. Bill Williams 08:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totall fair. I agree and understand. Stallion55347 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's see how it goes, and if the RfC fails, I will propose that wording on the talk page instead. It is more accurate since a number of the articles were opinion pieces and not "promoted by the editorial board" because they were not editorials, and on acid rain they later reversed their stance, while second hand smoke, pesticides, and asbestos were rarely ever even written about in op-eds, so mentioning those with the same weight as climate change for example is improper, therefore they should simply be summed up as "health and environmental issues". Bill Williams 21:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you're going with a sidebar discussion on your talk page, maybe ping others who have been active in this discussion, such as Aquillion, Hob Gadling, Kleinpecan and Snooganssnoogans. Oh...and me. soibangla (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to discuss this with Stallion, not bring in the entire talk page to his personal one, since you already had no interest in discussing anything with me there. It's funny how you specifically pinged almost every person who agreed with you, and not the multiple others who disagreed, including Politrukki, Ahecht, FormalDude, Animalparty, Loganmac, and Springee. Bill Williams 22:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you specifically pinged almost every person who agreed with you No, I merely scrolled through the history page and snagged the first few names who had recently been very active on it. There was no cherrypicking. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to discuss this with Stallion I don't see that you started this thread or that Stallion55347 pinged you. Odd. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating why I came here to discuss this with Stallion specifically, because clearly our discussions have not been the most productive on the article talk page, so I do not think that this talk page would change anything. And I am sorry for thinking you cherrypicked, I just noticed that Politrukki edited the same day as the others you pinged, and then I checked the survey and found the others you had not mentioned. I still think larger discussions belong on the talk page and not his personal page. Bill Williams 23:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you all know, I agree that we should continue the conversation in the RfC. I'm working on recapping the discussion that we've had so far in the RfC as it's been considerable. I'll be posting it in the RfC later today. Stallion55347 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with other editors who disagree with taking this to DRN. The RfC is stalled and should be closed. The longstanding content should remain. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, I think my wording would be an improvement, since clearly the longstanding content cannot remain precisely the same as it is when half of the editors disagreed with its wording. Bill Williams 00:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some explanation for these notifications? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]? Unless I'm missing something, all but one of the people you contacted seem to have been people who previously removed the text you're trying to remove from the article; that plainly seems to be a non-neutral notification per WP:CANVASS. I'm going to add a warning to the RFC to ensure the closer knows, and unless you provide some sort of explanation I think this should probably also be brought to WP:AE. CANVASS has already been mentioned in the discussions over the RFC - I find it hard to accept that you are unaware of it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the entire edit history of the article's talk page, and only Noteduck and Sro23 actually edited it, with Noteduck voting against Stallion's stated position and Sro23 commenting on something unrelated. I did not search through the article itself's history, but if these individuals edited the sentence in question, I think Stallion was just notifying the concerned users to participate in the RfC. It seems like criticizing his notifications is selection bias, since anyone who would wish to keep that information in the article would never edit the sentence, only people who wish to remove it, meaning those are the only people he would notify. Bill Williams 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion Yes, I attempted to reached out to each person who had removed or modified the statement to give them a voice in the discussion. Stallion55347 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]