User talk:Dcpoliticaljunkie

Welcome!

Hello, Dcpoliticaljunkie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Dcpoliticaljunkie's vandalizing edit behaviour.. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:08, 23 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding No consensus on UAW RFC. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Elissa Slotkin".The discussion is about the topic UAW Strike Quote.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

andrew.robbins (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kristen Waggoner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Farris. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your ADL votes

I appreciate your interest in the discussion. However, I would encourage you not to speculate on the motives of other editors, and instead focus on the reliability of the source. Therefore, I would ask you to alter your vote to reflect that. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much FortunateSons (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable crypto sources

Regarding Josh Gottheimer, per WP:COINDESK, Coindesk is not a reliable source, and TheBlock.co appears to be worse in terms or general reliability. Please find and summarize according to sources which are both WP:IS and WP:RS. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COINDESK, it's not a reliable source for notability and that it may have conflicts of interest when discussing specific coins. Unless you're suggesting that a sitting member of Congress is not notable or that Gottheimer has a conflict of interest with Coinbase, that's not relevant. I have no reason to believe that Coinbase is not independent of Gottheimer and I would suggest you take it to WP:RSN if you have evidence that there is a conflict between Gottheimer and Coinbase. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some additional sources, I think a discussion of his position on crypto is warranted but do worry the quoting is excessive. That said, per WP:ABOUTSELF, using his website to ascertain his own position is fine although we probably have WEIGHT issues given how much his article references his own website and House roll call votes... Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This over-use of PR is a recurring problem with politicians (and Wikipedia in general). If you can find reliable, independent sources, use those instead of unreliable ones like Coindesk. Grayfell (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COINDESK, while Coindesk is only not suitable for proving notability. It's perfectly fine source absent potential conflicts of interest (ie., as with crypto companies that advertise with them). As I said above: Unless you're suggesting that a sitting member of Congress is not notable or that Gottheimer has a conflict of interest with Coinbase, in which case you can take it to RSN, this is a fine source in this context. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sitting members of Congress have many political positions. The way we summarize those positions, and therefor indicate to readers which positions are significant and why they are significant, is via reliable, independent sources. Note that WP:COINDESK is tagged as "generally unreliable" with links to four separate past discussions documenting this consensus. As an unreliable outlet, Coindesk is useless for these purposes. Our goal is to cite reliable independent sources and use those sources to explain to readers why something is significant enough to mention. Adding unreliable sources does not help with that goal. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the past discussions and respectfully disagree with your characterization. There seems to be disagreement between some editors who argue that it is a reliable source and others who have argued to remove it entirely. It's worth noting that most concerns centered around conflicts of interest with various entities in the crypto space. The most recent close concluding there was "consensus to uphold the consensus from the previous discussion that Coindesk should not be used for notability, and further consensus that it should generally be avoided as a source when possible".
The median opinion, then, would have to be characterized as supporting judicious use and not a blanket determination of unreliable as you seem to believe. As I noted above, we're not arguing notability here and I don't see any reason to believe Coindesk is conflicted when it comes to Gottheimer. Therefore, it is a perfectly fine source for our purposes (although I have no objection to your finding a better source, it is not one that needs to be removed). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Generally Unreliable so absolutely not usable on a BLP. The paragraph has a whole pile of RSes! If you really can't support your claim from those, then it may just not belong in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that was a hard-and-fast rule but you are right. Would also disagree with the non-admin closure which seems to have resulted in that designation at RSPS (the prior, better-attended RfC that was closed by an admin resulted in a "no consensus" decision) but not my battle. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LoHud as a reliable news source

Hi, I see that you reverted my edit to George Latimer. I wasn't clear from your message whether the issue you found was that the source was not reliable, or that my phrasing was inaccurate. I am going to assume it's a phrasing issue and work on reinstating it in a rewritten version. I would appreciate clarification around that. Thanks for engaging! Cityonpyre (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cityonpyre My issue with the edit is that it appeared WP:UNDUE to me. I'd suggest getting a consensus on the article talk page before re-inserting it. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for help with the edit from the "help" option you mentioned in your message so I will see what they say there, thank you Cityonpyre (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should be at Talk:George Latimer (New York politician).
Also, to clarify, I used the NPOV template with general information to welcome you but the main issue for me is that I believe it's WP:UNDUE to have a whole paragraph about it. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have begun a conversation on the talk page and we can talk there thank you Cityonpyre (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page on Zionism

Can you please address the outright lies and vandalism of this page? (Ie: Isreal is a “colonial movement“ by “European Jews”. I don’t know how, and Wiki is refusing to address this issue, even with a petition. Kind regards Woodspixie (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Gonzalez edit

Regarding your revert of the edit on Vicente Gonzalez regarding his recent vote and your citing of WP:UNDUE, I wonder if you could expand on that? I saw the edit when it came in and thought it was very NPOV and didn't give any weight to either side of the vote. So when I read up on WP::UNDUE, I didn't see how that applied here. Would you enlighten me, please? I could see that recording every vote he makes is a bit excessive but that's not what WP:UNDUE refers to, as I understand it. Thanks. Hondo77 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]