If you want to have a discussion about article content, please put your comment on that article's talk page, so that other editors are aware of the discussion. If I have not responded to a discussion, please ping me there or let me know here. Sometimes I am unexpectedly busy, and I may not have time to respond for several months.
Activist, yes. The lack of Black characters in Dilbert had always been a problem, and I had even tried to excuse some of his statements in the past, but his views and statements have been increasingly more repulsive the past several years. His recent comments are so overtly racist (not to mention nonsensical), and I am glad he is being held accountable. Any suggestions on a new username? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestions but I'm sure you'll get a good one.
I knew Scott Adams was a right winger in real life, but really liked the strip focused on the universal ironies of bureaucracies. I get a Sunday-only USA Today paper for state and local news but also for access to the chain's nationwide publications. I read just the Dilbert and Doonesbury strips. They've canceled so that means I'm down to one.
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.
Howdy Notwally,
Jonathystiensteinstone here and I wanted to discuss the editing of the Pepé Le Pew article along with allegations you've made about me having more than one account or am in coordination with others.
For starters, my account was newly created last night, and prior to that I had only made 2 edits to the article in question (without an account/anonymously). I decided to make an account so I could be more easily contacted to discuss editing and such!
Secondly, my apologies for the back and forth when it comes to editing that portion of the article, and my apologies if any of my comments came across as rude. That is definitely not my intention and I merely want to organize the article and keep it unbiased. Talk of the critism of the character is valid and definitely noteworthy, but I do find putting it in the Lead Section using the wording you used was a bit inaccurate and unnecessary. Hopefully we can come to an understanding/compromise on how to edit the article!
Again my apologies if any stress or upset was caused by this issue, hope you have a wonderful day! Jonathystiensteinstone (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathystiensteinstone, with all due respect, your edits do not seem intended to keep the article "organized" or "unbiased". You have ignored WP:LEAD as well as the views of multiple other editors. You have also repeatedly changed your reasons for your edits, including the false claim that you were concerned about length when in fact your latest edit added to the length of the paragraph in question, while replacing the sourced material from the body summarized in the lead with unsourced speculation and your own spin on it. Considering that your removal of this content has been reverted by at least 4 editors, you need to stop trying to edit war your personal views into the article and instead use the article's talk page to propose your changes and try to get consensus for what you think needs to be changed. – notwally (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AussieDamo, yes, you should probably cite that. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which means others can check to see if it is cited to reliable sources. If you check those blue links, you can learn a lot more about the Wikipedia policies. Also, if you provide me a link to the article in question, I can provide a more specific response. – notwally (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Years later, you continue to make some changes despite not understanding previous edits or page content. This will be my first and last message about this specific issue so hopefully you will understand this one:
You changed it from "{{plainlist|" to "{{Plainlist|", this is pointless and does not cause any formatting errors, but sure.
While doing this change, you unnecessarily reverted "June 6, 2022" to "2022-06-10", this can cause errors because in some cases YEAR-MONTH-DAY does not work as intended, so the former is actually preferred since the end result is exactly the same.
You also removed this sourced info for some reason: "Some publications stated that Hereditary has gained a cult following since its release and considered it to be one of the best horror films of the 2010s." If you do not agree with the sources or the text, you should try to change them or discuss before removing them completely, without a valid reason (as this is not even a formatting/style issue).
Speaking of sock puppets I assume this user[2] is the the sock of the IP. The editor has attempted to make the same type of edits on that article in April. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nemov, I get the impression that the IP editor is a long-term editor who has made contentious POV edits in the past, given their knowledge of numerous policies. They may even have had an account in the past that was banned, considering how much they talk about their user talk page for a dynamic, frequently changing IP. However, based on their editing and commenting style, I do not get the impression that they are the same person as the other editor. The citations being the same appears more like lazy work by the logged-in account editor copying the IP editor's citations than probative evidence of sockpuppetry. This tracks with the substanceless sentence they added to the article [3]. I think you may want to withdraw your SPI until you have more evidence. – notwally (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right about the lazy editing but the edit summaries are very similar. Maybe there's an off wiki coordination going on that explains two users suddenly showing up. Nemov (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that the IP user had pinged the other editor. I missed that during all the wall of text responses being generated so quickly. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit [4] because the sources seem to check out. The aim is to cover topics such as the ongoing battle for democracy...[5]He decided to launch a more serious site in December last year while covering Occupy demonstrations in the area.[6] Just letting you know that I'm open to discussion. CurryCity (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content you added is not what the sources actually say, though. Phrases such as "such as" and "as well as reporting on breaking news" cannot be ignored without distorting the meaning. As for the second source, you even say that it "suggests a connection without directly saying it", which would be WP:OR. Yes, the paper was founded after the 2014 protests, and in many ways in response to the increasing censorship that was seen in response to the protests. That is definitely important to its history. But that is not the same as being founded with one of its primary aims to cover the pro-democracy movement, which is how the language you restored to the lead portrays it. What I find in reviewing the sources are numerous references to its desire to be an independent alternative to the SCMP, with many sources now describing it as the last remaining independent alternative new outlet, e.g., [7]. I moved mention of the pro-democracy movement that you had restored to the lead into the body under "history" since it does seem relevant there. Here is my edit. If you would like to discuss this further, I would request that this discussion be copied over the to article's talk page to continue there in case other editors may be interested in it. – notwally (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it because the wording was close enough to the sources and had been there for years. Didn't know you feel so strongly about it. CurryCity (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone who has a COI is asking for other editors to review an issue in an article, then I think it is important that we take those requests seriously. I don't agree that the wording was close to the sources. – notwally (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I noticed that you deleted the edit on Erin Torpey's page. I checked her IMDB page and there are no more acting credits after 2015. By that logic, if an actor's filmography ends at a certain year, doesn't that mean they are retired? 92.30.208.30 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I truly do appreciate your continued contributions to the article, and I have come around to agree with many of your edits (such as much of the language sounding promotional), I do think the pruning is a bit excessive and some edits are unnecessary. I've also noticed another user @KaiSulyma edited the article more in line with my original draft and you reverted their edit on account of being "not how the sources describe him." Respectfully, I think that this is largely not true and his edits were fairly minor and hardly excessive.
In an effort to avoid an edit war and receive more detailed constructive feedback, I've made a slightly revised draft in my sandbox. I've taken a "middle of the road" approach and I feel it is fairly conservative and avoids excessively promotional language while elaborating in line with the facts expressed by the cited secondary sources.
I will publish this by Thursday if I don't receive feedback from you, so if you are unavailable until then please don't take my edits as a way to personally "get back" at your reversions on the article; I simply believe that it could use some improvement and feels a little "half baked" in its current state.
Faketuxedo, could you please post the comments you left here to the article's talk page instead? I do not want to have discussions about article content on my talk page, where other editors may not be aware of the discussion. – notwally (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. I figured because it was primarily between me and you it belongs here but that makes sense. Adding it in just a moment. Faketuxedo (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, another editor made a revision that addressed most of what I mentioned in my draft. If you see any issues and would like to continue this discussion on the talk page, please go ahead, but I am pretty happy with the article in its current state and will not be pursuing revising it significantly as I had planned. Faketuxedo (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faketuxedo, I think your explanations in your sandbox are reasonable, and you may want to leave a comment on the article's talk page with some of that reasoning from your sandbox and your comments above here as they may be useful in the future to other editors. In general, I don't think that language such as "Noted for" is useful to add and prefer adding the content without the unnecesary preface. As for the similarities added in the "Toilet Paper Bears" paragraph, I think WP:WEIGHT would encourage adding mention of the differences as well if that many similarities are being added, based on my recall of the sources from my previous edits, but I think your edit is fine given the work you have already put into the article and I would not object to any of them. – notwally (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemov. This is a courtesy notification - I have no stake in the SPI case. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
