User talk:Thenightaway

Semi-Protection

You are getting lengthy diatribes on your talk page from unregistered editors. You can request semi-protection of your talk page. You can, of course, simply collapse the rants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Ethics violations (four, count 'em, four kinds yadda yadda yadda) ... Please. You're welcome.--Oblio4 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A series of concerns regarding GOP article

I'll be frank. I appreciate your desire to include certain content within the article (such as the prevalence of illiberal attitudes in elements of the party). However, you must always act with the awareness that the subject matter is not a fringe one – it's the second largest political party in America by membership and holds a majority of state governorships and houses. You've shown an incessant arrogance regarding how the article should be phrased and formatted. Reversions of common-sense edits (such as changing "civil rights" to "affirmative action" for the subheading denoting the GOP's policy toward... affirmative action) is POV pushing at its worst. Furthermore, you've been subjective concerning what content to allow. You were steadfastly against the article elaborating on the present varied and diverse views within the party on drug policy, for instance, resulting in the current status quo where two sentences are dedicated to the subject. Never mind that a plethora of reliable sources could be used for this.

I intend to re-instate my edits (excluding the picture formatting, which I botched). If you have any concerns whatsoever, raise it on the talk page. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party's anti-democratic maneuver's has nothing to do with the "composition" of the party. Also, stop bringing content disputes to this talk page rather than the article talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of a warning to edit warring (which you've also left on my talk page), if my memory is correct I haven't done so before. I left this comment here, which I am happy to replicate on the article talk, because it was addressing you specifically. thorpewilliam (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How to find/identify aggregate polling?

Hi! I just looked at your userpage and saw this: "instruct editors to use aggregate polling (if it exists) rather than individual polls (which partisans cherrypick to make subjects appear better/worse)"

I agree, by what questions you ask, often generates what responses you'll get. Do you have any advice on how to IDENTIFY or FIND such aggregate polling? Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern was with political candidates running for office and major politicians who have approval ratings. Partisan editors have historically cherry-picked individual poll numbers to make their preferred candidate look great. 538 and RealClearPolitics tend to aggregate those, so my recommendation was to use those. For other issues, I'm not sure if consistent aggregations exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

1RR violation

Snoogan, please self revert this edit[[1]] as it violates 1RR. You removed the content, I restored it. Adding some well poisoning comments about Dershowitz defending Trump is a reversion of the text I restored. That puts you at 2 reverts. You are an experienced editor and know better. Springee (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not a revert. Furthermore, that is actually stating what the cited RS says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to include that off topic comment in our article and it is a revert since you have changed the sentence in a significant way. Simply adding who nominated would be honest and reasonable. Trying to then poison the well by noting that Dershowitz defended Trump is a problem. Springee (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent context that the man behind the nomination is involved with the Trump administration. That is after all why the cited RS made note of it early and prominently. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a 1RR discussion here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, I am concerned about Springee making false claims about edit warring and breaking 1RR/3RR warnings. They similarly made a false complaint about me on another page related to conservative politics (in that case Andy Ngo). I'm concerned this is part of an extended pattern of litigiousness and WP:LAWYERING on their part, and that you shouldn't take this complaint too seriously Noteduck (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)