| Revision as of 16:39, 15 July 2024 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 edits →Alleged Trump BRD violation: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:18, 15 January 2025 edit undoDreamRimmer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Mass message senders, New page reviewers41,204 edits Notifying user about Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Category:Attacks (via MassXfD.js) | ||
| (93 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ⚖️ | ⚖️ | ||
| == |
== Help with adding to Talk page == | ||
| I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page | |||
| I'll write more about your proposed addition to Be Bold on that talk page. Here, I'm wondering about your inability to get out from under the topic ban. ] says "In the case of indefinite topic bans, conditions should be given by which the user can demonstrate rehabilitation." Did you receive conditions? - ] (]) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :], basically, they said that as long as I continued to question them about whether the original ban was proper in the first place, then it would remain.] (]) 05:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::► Or perhaps they said the ban would remain until you demonstrate that you understand why the original ban was placed? (Whether or not you agree is is proper.) If so, I encourage you to consider that the ban is not simply for the edit you made to consensus. Rather, it is for a sequence of events that included the edit, to wit: | |||
| ::1. You ran into an editing roadblock, | |||
| ::2. you edited consensus in an effort to remove that roadblock, and | |||
| ::3. then (after time had passed) you tried to use the edited text to get past the roadblock. | |||
| ::I can see why you thought this would work. After all, the passage of time created a silent consensus on the consensus page that your edit was okay. | |||
| ::► But I'm wondering whether the fundamental problem isn't about the consensus edit but the about the roadblocked edit. You believed it was a non-substantive edit and, evidently, another editor - or other editors - disagreed. Then, rather accepting that you have lost the battle, you tried to do an end run. | |||
| ::Look, ] when you believe you are 100% right and others are unreasonable for not agreeing with you or, in some cases, even failing to engage in good faith discussions about the dispute. But at some point you have to accept ] and move on. ''See'' ]. | |||
| ::► In this case, I suggest you stop trying to get the topic ban removed by arguing that it was improper in the first place. Instead, say that, (a) while you did not intend to game the system, upon reflection you understand that that is what you did and (b) you will be on guard to avoid that in the future. - ] (]) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::], thanks for the advice, but I am not currently trying to get the topic-ban removed. I am trying to improve policy to help well-intentioned editors in the future. I believe that, going forward, Misplaced Pages policy should explicitly say that boldly editing policy in any way that does not change the policy’s meaning cannot possibly be gaming the system. That policy edit would not be retroactive, so it would have no effect whatsoever on my topic ban 15 years ago. There are sound reasons for making a policy’s implications explicit, one of those reasons being so that malicious editors cannot so easily try to twist that meaning. This is obvious. Incidentally: your understanding of what happened to me ages ago is wrong. You wrote: “You believed it was a non-substantive edit and, evidently, another editor - or other editors - disagreed. Then, rather accepting that you have lost the battle, you tried to do an end run.” When I mentioned the policy at article talk, weeks after I had boldly edited the policy, no one had objected to my policy edit, quite the opposite. So there was no “end run.” I don’t understand where you got that idea. The only objections to my policy edit happened after I mentioned the revised policy weeks later at article talk. Hell will freeze over before I confess to having “gamed the system,” which I did not do.] (]) 02:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would you please provide me with a link to the topic ban discussion so I can see what actually took place? Perhaps then I will understand why you believe your proposed change at consensus would reduce the chances of whatever happened to you happening to someone else. - ] (]) 07:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to me like a no-brainer that the policy on bold policy edits should distinguish between bold policy edits that change the meaning of the policy versus those that don’t. You think they should be treated just the same? Of course they shouldn’t be treated just the same. You asked me whether I’d ever had experience in this regard, so I told you about it. I have no desire to dredge up the past here. You should be able to recognize that treating bold policy edits the same, whether they change the policy’s meaning or not, is nuts. There must be a way to convey this important point succinctly without bloating the policy on bold edits. If you must have some links, here’s what ArbCom said about me in 2011 on this point: “He has edited the page on consensus on July 10 , giving the reason for an article he edited that day (presumably abortion which was the only contentious one , and then referred to it-as-policy 20 days later, hence manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute. The policy change was removed by KillerChihuahua..” As you can see, ArbCom didn’t give two sh*ts whether the policy edits changed the meaning of the policy or not, they just assumed there was something nefarious regardless whether the policy’s meaning was changed. Many times I have raised this point with them, and many times have they refused to address whether my policy edit changed the meaning of the policy or not. As you can probably tell, I don’t enjoy rehashing this now, and I don’t think further discussion about 2011 is necessary in order to determine whether a policy edit would be wise in 2024. Cheers.] (]) 07:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ► Thank you for the history. I will honor your desire to not discuss it further. | |||
| ] | |||
| ► Regarding your proposed change to Be bold, I believe the policy on bold policy edits ''shouldn't'' distinguish between bold policy edits that change the meaning of the policy versus those that don’t. Here's why - | |||
| and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? ] (]) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If it were up to me we'd eliminate "However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed" because it suggests that other things can't and shouldn't be "fixed" as soon as they are noticed. And for the same reason I am opposed to starting a list of things that fall within the "can and should" category. | |||
| ::I reported the glitch at ]. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you.] (]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? ] (]) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, ]. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam.] (]) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| If we were to have a list, "changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy" strikes me as opening up an opportunity for editors to have a procedural argument about whether an edit fits within that definition (as opposed to having a substantive argument about the content of the edit). - ] (]) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we eliminate the sentence about grammatical and spelling errors, then an editor who makes such a correction, and then quotes the corrected version at article talk during a content dispute, should be sanctioned for editing policy to advance his position in a content dispute?] (]) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sentence before the grammatical and spelling sentence says " In these cases, it is also '''often better''' to discuss potential changes first." And your proposed sentence is "Likewise, changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy, are '''less likely to be problematic''' for the bold editor, as compared to changes that substantively alter existing policy." ] (]) 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't think that "often better" can be the basis for a sanction or that "less likely to be problematic" can protect against a sanction. Particularly when the sanction is for later quoting the self-edited text, not for making the edit in the first place. - ] (]) 02:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The type of sanction I’m concerned about is not merely for “later quoting the self-edited text” but for later quoting the self-edited text without having discussed the potential policy changes before making them. That’s what a bold policy edit is. Anyway, I hope you could please see your way to acknowledging that citing one’s own bold policy edits is perfectly fine if the policy edits did not change the meaning of the policy. That covers spelling fixes, grammatical fixes, stylistic changes, et cetera. So maybe we could state that general principle instead of the sentence about grammar and spelling. You say it’s not good to create potential arguments for bold editors to make, but if the bold editor did nothing wrong then I don’t see what’s wrong with helping him argue he did nothing wrong. Unless we want to set a trap for the unwary.] (]) 03:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Two thoughts about "citing one’s own bold policy edits is perfectly fine if the policy edits did not change the meaning of the policy" - | |||
| :::::1. One editor's "did not change the meaning" is another editor's "did change the meaning." In your case, an opposing editor could argue, you changed the meaning from being limited to spelling and grammar to including something more. That is what I meant when I expressed a concern that adding your text would create an opening for procedural arguments (perhaps I should have said "wikilawyer arguments"). | |||
| :::::2. I suggest that the explicit exception you propose to the general "citing one's own bold policy edits" statement should not be placed in Consensus or Be bold. Rather, it should go into <s>Gaming the system</s> ] (which currently says "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion '''may be seen''' as ], especially if you do not disclose it when making the edits"). ] (]) 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the reply, ]. I’ll say three things in response. First, you say, “an opposing editor could argue, you changed the meaning from being limited to spelling and grammar to including something more.” But I edited ], not the policy on being bold, and anyway the sentence of the latter (“spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed”) does not suggest to me that other non-substantive edits cannot be made on a more leisurely schedule. Second, I did make disclosure in edit summary, which of course Arbcom held against me instead of counting in my favor. Lastly, you suggest editing the policy on gaming the system instead of the policy on bold edits; good enough, I’ll go there instead when I get around to it.] (]) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sounds good. It has been nice to have a respectful discussion with an editor with whom I disagree. Happens all too rarely. | |||
| :::::::One note: In my most recent post I changed my recommended target for change from Gaming the system to Policies and guidelines, specifically ]. - ] (]) 00:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits. | |||
| == Hunter Biden Laptop CT violation == | |||
| ], here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --] (]) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| violates the Consensus Required restriction on that article. You reinstated content challenged as UNDU and a citation to deprecated Fox News. Kindly self-undo your violation.]] 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The text is entirely new, and there is a new reference too. And, Additionally, I have removed the Fox reference, which leaves two references.] (]) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You reinstated challenged content. That violated the page restriction. Please remove the entire edit. If you wish to dispute that violation. it w need to be at AE, not on a talk page or edit summary.]] 15:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. The content is totally different from what you reverted. The text is totally different, and the footnote to Fox is removed. AFAIK that’s the way Misplaced Pages works. Editor A reverts with an explanation, so Editor B tries something else in a way that respects that explanation.] (]) 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I gave you the courtesy of a reminder warning.]] 17:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A Misplaced Pages editor can’t always slant articles her way. Incidentally, I have never edited the article titled “]”.] (]) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at ], "he edit must be signed by adding <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --] (]) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Alleged Trump BRD violation == | |||
| :], thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see ], which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right.] (]) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a ] by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence. | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one: | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --] (]) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh and I am ]d to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen.] (]) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --] (]) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| violates the "enforced BRD" page restriction. Please self-revert.]] 03:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, someone already reverted it. Second, I opened a talk page discussion about it and several editors agreed unanimously that it would be fine to restore the text deleted. You know all this, but still come here in bad faith to intimidate me or get me blocked or banned. I suppose that’s perfectly understandable given that such sordid techniques often succeed at Misplaced Pages.] (]) 05:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ::The reason for a user talk reminder is to ''avoid'' formal enforcement of CT, not to precipitate a sanction. Please try to be more careful in the future. {{ping|Valjean|Mandruss}}]] 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No clue why I was pinged. ―] ] 12:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| ::::], please go away. You know very well that I started a discussion at article talk, and did not edit the article until there was unanimous agreement among several editors.] (]) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please review the description of the enforced-BRD sanction and the further explanation by an Admin on the article talk page. I will not be posting further in this thread.]] 16:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| ::::::I asked you politely to go away, but if you insist upon coming back here one more time, please quote anything you like saying that reverting an edit is forbidden after a talk page discussion results in unanimous support among several editors for the revert.] (]) 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ] | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| == CfD nomination at ] == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notice--> Thank you. – ] <small>(])</small> 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:18, 15 January 2025
⚖️
Help with adding to Talk page
I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page
Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? Swan2024 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, User:Swan2024. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax
First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.
Regarding the neo-Nazi debate, here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at Template:Reply to, "he edit must be signed by adding
~~~~to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) - User:Super Goku V, thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a Neutral point of view by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and I am Subscribed to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Category:Attacks
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15 § Category:Attacks on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)