Thanks for your attempts to improve these articles. As you are finding out, making positive changes -- generally, getting the articles closer to WP:NPOV -- is time-consuming and can be very frustrating. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be frustrating. I notice on the hockey-stick-controversy talk page that you once suggested adding something and got some sniping re reliable sources etc. Now I'm complaining about a third-hand account re the NRC report that appeared in a newsletter, and seeing opposition. Nevertheless I didn't support you before (don't know the subject) and am not expecting you to support me (it's boring). I'll keep assuming good faith on most people's part and maybe someday something will click. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed most of these since my 2005 ban, but the occasional horror still comes to my attention, --especially the use of the "climate denier" smear in Wikipedia's editorial voice. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fred_Singer#%22Advocate_for_climate_denial%22_now_well-sourced

Good grief. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your comment about the revisions to DataStax while I was out of the country on vacation, then I promptly forgot about it. Sorry for the unintended neglect. I hope all has been resolved - if not, let me know and I will jump in. --Drm310 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v252/n5480/abs/252216a0.html William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this is a hint about my change today to the Nigel Calder article. I didn't see how it affects what I said, though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Yes, I am aware. I suggest you read the scathing AGC review, which incidentally does not reflect on Raitt at all, since she was not Minister of transport at the time, to see how you would characterise it. The "partisan" adjective serves well where it is. How else do you characterise a self-serving review? It cannot be characterised as independent, since the board paid for it. Wiki'll evaluate your fixes if you choose to make any. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he's been banned, feel free to revert any of his that you find unhelpful.

He won't be missed. His protestations of innocence at his Talk page are entertaining. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that User:Darkness Shines took the trouble to propose investigation, although I see that the ban is due to puppetry, and would have preferred a ban due to what was in the edits. IHaveAMasterDegree's protests when I complained in December were irritating rather than entertaining, because a surprising number of decent editors somehow found merit on his/her/its edits. And yes I have felt free to remove the majority of those edits, but I've stopped now, so if you see something serious that I missed, please feel free yourself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find that block very suspect, the supposed master last edited four years ago and had but one sock. The data on the master is stale. This is an alternate account, the guy says as much in his unblock request, but I doubt, very much, that IHaveAMastersDegree is a sock of Bearguardian, an account which had never edited any climate change related articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he certainly never rang true as a new user, either -- "butter wouldn't melt in his mouth". I try to avoid the disciplinary side as much as possible -- in fact I've been avoiding the CC area lately becaise it's such a pain to change anything, in the face of the True Believers.

And yes, thank you DS. You're two for two at Delingpole alone! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User: Peter Gulutzan: I am writing to let you know that the block on my account was a case of mistaken identity. My account has now been unblocked. I recently noticed that within a few hours of my account being blocked, you undid about forty of my edits, most of them with little or no explanation other than "Removed edit by blocked editor" or variations on that. I do not think that you have given a valid reason for your many reversions of my edits. Please show good faith by self-reverting those forty or so edits. If any of your changes have valid reasons, please state them on the various talk pages and we will discuss there and seek consensus. Thank you. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Banned User:IHaveAMastersDegrees: I hope you've figured out that you will be blocked "for cause" instead of the (app mistaken) sock-puppetry business? Please read the Result concerning IHaveAMastersDegree. And avoid making more work for those who are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia, rather than score points, Go away. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IHaveAMastersDegree: I will revert my reversions if the administrators decide that there was nothing wrong with the way that you edited, or that there was something wrong with the way that I edited. Or, for every individual case where my edit comment was the exact words "Removed edit by blocked editor", I will yield when any independent editor reverts my reversion. Naturally I regret that there was an administrative error, and assure you that I would have used more detailed edit comments than "Removed edit by blocked editor" if I had suspected otherwise. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself on reverting my Marc Morano comment in the talk section. I only cited a source that is much more reputable than the other sources. It is a record of the US Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will conceded this revert but urge you to not revert the recent change. I agree that the one you reverted was not a great addition, but the new change is much more informative and removed a poor personal opinion from an author that was not supported by the reference.

I am only using your talk to discuss this article since you have failed to comment on the article talk page and feel free to remove this if you agree with the most recent changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been deleting a raft of citations, pointing at the BLP noticeboard: "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli" section. I have not found this section or any discussion on the topic in a search of the archives. Can you point me to it? M.boli (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@M.boli:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive199#BLPs_Quoting_Blog_Posts_By_Dana_Nuccitelli Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Thank you. M.boli (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my edit, I erroneously thought the topic ban ended this month. I have notified the administrator who issued the ban in the first place at User talk:Sandstein. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I manually moved the survey image you posted to Wikipedia (English) to the Commons, where I simply turned it into an updated version of the original. This is consistent with WP:TOCOMMONS. Since we are the only eds who have commented so far, please consider just deleting this talk thread, as it would be confusing and useless to transfer it as well. TPG lets us delete talk threads if all agree to do so, and I do if you do. More, I think doing so is best. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has already put up a "keep local" request. In any case, although I'm sure you're right about where the image should be, I don't want to overwrite the commons page until we're sure there are no objections. I'll say more on Talk:Surveys of scientists' views on climate change.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on.

Once we settle on captions, could you please also correct the Bray and von Storch results, per this? Assuming no one comments by then. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made what I think are the changes that people have been suggesting. I'll say more on Talk:Surveys of scientists' views on climate change.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if you've been pinged but here is my reply [1]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter - regarding this, the reason I collapsed that section of the discussion was because it was almost entirely about Tetra's edits use of AWB, not answering the original question of capitalization standards. Since the DRN discussion ended with TQ losing access to AWB, and the goal now is to get that clear consensus, I collapsed that area to tidy up and focus on the discussion regarding capitalization, and the consideration of extending the discussion to MOS (particularly if anyone new wants to chime in). If you don't think it was appropriate, I won't challenge that - maybe it'd be worth separating what I collapsed into it's own sub-header? I'll leave that for you to consider. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr/Ms Hamster: I understand and sympathize, but regard my question to Tetra quark as relevant because it addresses the proposed change's implementation difficulty. I have added a WP:MOS section now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for the reply and the mention @ MOS :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You undid an edit I made, in which I had replaced 11 words with 1, and you left the edit summary Doesn't look verbose. I can only conclude that you don't know what "verbose" means. It means "using more words than necessary". So, if you can express something in 1 word, then expressing it in 11 words is verbose. Kindly don't revert the hard work of other editors if you don't understand the reason for the edit. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you deletions changed the meaning considerably, these explanations don't make sense to me either, and I agree with Peter Gulutzan's revert [2]. Please take it to the talk page, and remain civil.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB, thanks. Apparently we all agree what verbose means, and the article's talk page would be the place to discuss further. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning was not changed at all. That's two false claims made in reverting my change. What is your actual reason? Do you have one? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200.83.136.145 has been blocked for one week after a separate incident, and the IP was added to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB, thanks again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I certainly don't mean to be exercising ownership over Universe; apologies if it came across that way. I reverted to "Universe" simply because that's how this page has been for a long time (I checked 500 edits back as a random sample — I wasn't an active editor of that article at the time, in 2013 — and it primarily used "Universe" back then), which I consider an example of the existing consensus on this particular article. A single editor changing two of the dozens of uses of the word in that article from a proper name to a common noun strikes me as a bad idea. Wikipedia policy is to maintain consistency unless there's a consensus to change an article, I thought. It is certainly true that I prefer to treat the word "universe" as a proper name when used as the name of the Universe, but I would revert changes to be consistent if the existing version always used it as a common noun in the absence of a consensus to make the change. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASHill And I apologize for not finding the edit that you said you were reverting. I see it now. If you would like to revert again, in a way that ensures that the editor whom you're reverting SarahTehCat sees that you're reverting, I'll make no further objection at this moment. But if you had bothered to read the RfC discussion that you participated in, you'd know that universe was the earlier spelling and there was discussion on the article's talk page which decided not to change, but Universe was stuffed in with the ridiculous edit summary "Fixing the proper noun usage to be inline with presentation here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Universe)". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remember whether this was one of the articles that had been changed from "universe" to "Universe" at some point in the past; I did check that it wasn't one of the ones changed in January 2015 by Tetra quark. Apologies for not digging more than 2 years into the past of this particular article. (Separately, I've asked at WT:MOSCAPS if we want to try to come to an actual conclusion on this.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was possible to revert a registered user's edit w/o their being notified of said revert. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy, just revert manually instead of clicking Undo, as Ashill did to you here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for reference, I did it that way not to avoid notifying SarahTehCat but because I was only undoing a small portion of her edit. I've now reverted the two uses of "universe" to "Universe". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you just stated that you didn't do it so that I wouldn't be notified because otherwise I'd be really irritated; to me, unless you're an unregistered user, such an act is one of disrespect and cowardice. But your reason seems to me to be that you thought it was so minor you didn't want to bother me with it, is that it? If so, then I understand and am not irritated for the reason so stated. Although, I still think "universe" should not be capitalised except perhaps in the first sentence (hence why I left that one alone); this is because in this case it acts as an opening, and the capitalisation somewhat serves as a declaration of it being the topic and such a big one (both literally and figuratively). Not sure if I made any sense whatsoever just now, but hey it made sense in my head. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't anywhere near that thought out; frankly, I've never in the past considered the notification effects of using or not using the undo feature. Personally, I put pages I care about on my Watchlist, and that's how I learn of changes. (I've been editing at Wikipedia since long before these notifications existed and find them, on the whole, more annoying than useful, but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. ;) ) I edited manually rather than click the undo button simply because there were more changes in your edit that I wanted to keep than that I wanted to undo, so it was easier. I'll consider the notification effect in the future. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SarahTehCat: And if you want, you're welcome to join the v e r y extended discussion of capitalization of universe at WT:MOSCAPS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SarahTehCat:: You were right and ASHill was wrong, but ASHill has experience and the backing of Wiki Project Astronomy, so the particular edits that you did had little chance of survival. If it makes you feel any better: most of the editors who participated in the recent RfC "voted" that universe should not be capitalized. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ASHill: If it were edited, why didn't I get notified of that? Pages go onto my watchlist as soon as I edit them, so I should have been notified. And lol, that is an awesome word..."curmudgeon". I haven't heard that word in a long time, although maybe that's because I'm an...anti-curmudgeon? Haha, lol, that word doesn't exactly work for the opposite of curmudgeon. Lol. XD

@Peter Gulutzan: Yes, that does make me feel better a bit. :) Although I can't say I'm happy at all to find out that Wikipedia has its own political hierarchy. >:| Such a format is completely antithetical to the entire spirit of Wikipedia, and to be absolutely honest, it p**ses me off. >_< — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2015 March 16 (UTC)

@SarahTehCat: Yes, my edit is in the edit history and should have appeared on your watchlist if the article was on your watchlist. If it didn't, I'm not sure why.

Peter Gulutzan misrepresented the discussion and overestimates the cohesion of the astronomy wikiproject; it's not nearly as clear-cut as he makes it sound. In fact, by my count, 13 editors (counting you) who participated in the discussion supported "universe" always and 13 consider "Universe" a proper name when used as the name of our universe. And the exact numbers of the vote are irrelevant anyway; the point is simply that there's no clear consensus one way or the other. So in the meantime, normal practice is to maintain consistency within each article and to keep things as they are, absent a consensus to change them.

Most edits to Wikipedia are uncontroversial, but when there is disagreement about what is best, there has to be some structure for resolving these disagreements; wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS. For better or for worse, this structure is sometimes annoyingly bureaucratic and can be difficult to penetrate at times. However, it's a set of procedures that are designed to facilitate cooperation amongst thousands of editors who sometimes each have different opinions. Again, you're very welcome to contribute your opinion to the discussion at WT:MOSCAPS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the revert: yes it's there, perhaps SarahTehCat missed it due to expecting something else in the edit summary. Re how to count: I didn't bother replying before because I thought the truth was obvious, but now I have done so. Re "keep things as they are, absent a consensus to change them" -- that hypocrisy has (yet again) been exposed above, where you started by saying you'd have gone with universe if that had been the original consensus, but you dropped the subject when I observed that universe had been changed to Universe with a ridiculous edit summary and no consensus to change. And of course you're not mentioning the 1000 edits that were done with WikiProject Astronomy's approval, changing sun to Sun or earth to Earth or universe to Universe etc., in the last few months with usually no discussion whatever, let alone "consensus", on the talk pages of the victim articles. Indeed your accusation that I'm "misrepresenting" is correct -- I have to be careful because I don't allow foul language on my talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I haven't responded to every statement you've made that I disagree with; at least that's one way in which we agree. :D Yes, the Universe capitalization was changed a few years ago, but it has been that way for a while, and I don't think it makes sense to revert to the years-old version because one editor changed two of the dozens of occurrences in that particular article. In fact, I have gone through and reverted some of Tetra quark's over-the-top edits. However, the most advanced editing tools I use are the undo button (which actually does still work for most of TQ's January edits, I found, since the majority of them are by simple statistics lightly-edited ones) and copy-and-paste to a text editor with a good search and replace feature, so I can't keep up with TQ's AWB edits.

His edits were pretty strongly criticized by editors on WT:AST; by my reading, only @JorisvS: supported the substance of those edits. I certainly see no "approval" for the 1000s of edits. Complaints by astronomy project members about those edits led to his AWB privileges being suspended. You present the astronomy wikiproject as a monolithic entity that all gets along and agrees on this issue; if only that were the case! In fact, several astronomy editors (Drbogdan, Arianewiki1, and Isambard Kingdom) prefer to treat "universe" as always a common noun, but I don't think they've gone through and done widespread reverting either. (I'm not really sure who's a "project member" or an active editor of astronomy articles, so that's subjective.) By my reading of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 16, there's very little support for his widespread edits and plenty of reasons why it is a bad idea (some quite strongly worded). And moreover, the string of uncivil comments and edits contrary to consensus by Tetra quark, most of which involved other astronomy editors including me, were what led to his current indefinite block. So I'm really unclear why you somehow hold an entire project responsible for one rogue editor; what else were we supposed to do? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, @ASHill:, but that last sentence seemed rather rude... σ~σ — SarahTehCat

Ashill and I have simultaneous arguments happening on wt:moscaps, and I doubt that repeating them here is impressing SarahTehCat or anyone else, so I suggest we end this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I have deleted this conversation from my talk page. Let it be clear that I received a discretionary sanctions notice for ARBCC on March 18, in correct form and politely worded. My reply was influenced by the outcome from a mistaken accusation that I'd received a few days earlier from a different editor, and I thought that there was an intent to accuse me of something on WP:AE. I know more about DS notices now, and apologize for not knowing before.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, At Talk:anthony watts, please don't ping-template me with every post. That's what watchlists are for. While I appreciate the effort of making it easy for me, in fact it's giving me an extra thing to do - turning off the little red flag in my user panel. I'll see what you say without that, at least at that location.

thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News And Events Guy: sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, you meant well and it was appreciated. But now that we're engaged it's extra work for both of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you copied in a lot of text, some of which was apparently mangled in the formatting during transport. I am guessing that most of it was an error and that you only intended to post that first paragraph. I'm going to take the liberty of removing all the rest. Please fix it if I removed too much. Never mind. You already saw it and fixed it yourself. Let me know if there's something I can help with. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossami: It's great to see that editors like you would catch this sort of horror. Apologies and thanks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By now I have grown used to editors who try to intimidate me with accusations which they pretend could lead to blocking. I'm going to make this a standard reply: hit me with your best shot, eh? Bring your accusation to any administrator-watched forum/noticeboard and we'll see who gets in trouble. You'll see I am a regular at these boards: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Guy (Help!) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other editors stalking this talk page (I wonder how many there are?), Guy is responding to this and echoing my own words. In the event that the current disputes over the articles Anthony Watts (blogger) and Watts Up With That result in sanctions, I wouldn't want JzG/Guy's edits to be ignored. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were filing an AE complaint, citing WP:ARBCC#Principles and the prohibition against BATTLEGROUND editing, then I would cite someone's statement "hit me with your best shot" and braggadocio about AE/ANI experience, as an example BATTLE attitude instead of TEAMWORK attitude. The collegial response is to civilly list reasons one disagrees, and then say if that is not satisfying, you're willing to participate in the WP:Dispute resolution venue of the other party's choice.... and to politely follow through with that, if they take you up on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, whiich is precisely why I copy-pastes Peter's response to the DS-notice from above. Of the two of us, only one has a long-term history of promoting the climate "skeptic" view, or involvement with climate articles generally. It's not me. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The position one takes on a subject has nothing to do with the way one goes about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to be a regular at AE or ANI. I have of course been involved with climate articles, especially when poorly sourced or unsourced accusations are made that "so-and-so is a climate denier" -- just as Guy/JzG is doing now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tillman: I'll consider sending a greeting when the "climate change skeptic" arguing dies down. For the information of all who stalk my talk page: I have never corresponded with any Wikipedia editor about any Wikipedia matter via any means other than Wikipedia pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on dodging the bullet. I guess one scalp was enough ;-[

I doubt I'll have the inclination (or energy) to pursue Mann Jess, but hope you (or someone) does. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(The above remarks have to do with the fact that Mann jess succeeded in a WP:AE action against Tillman but not against me.) I am disappointed that the result was merely "no consensus" rather than "do not make unjustified accusations again", but thanks for the congratulations. I'll say more on your talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the existing discussion at AE to WP:AE#Peter Gulutzan. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter: Do you want to cooperate on filing an Arb Enforcement doc against Mann Jess? Since she's decided to file on both of us.... Bah, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman: No. Mann jess originally filed against both of us as if we're together, but now it's been changed to two separate filings. That's fine because in fact we never work together, in fact you disagreed totally with me re the last WP:AE matter. I got rather disgusted when jps claimed I'm in a tag team with Arzel and Capitalismojo. I won't do anything that might lend fodder to such allegations. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've never done one, but I'm sure I can figure it out ;-| As it happens, it's likely to be several days before I have time to deal with any of this. Pity it comes to this, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on your recent reversions at Talk:Christopher C. Horner#Removal of well-cited material. Please don't remove well-cited material. Fuzzypeg★ 02:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on that talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the original October discussion. — TPX 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is doubtless a reference to the CFD mentioned at the start of the BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. They're alerted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert, I appreciate it and we entirely agree on the underlying issue of "denier" being inappropriate for the category name. I would have preferred a neutral notice go up on the BLP to encourage more editors to contribute to the open CFD nomination. Too few editors participate and we really need more input on nominations across the board. I'm a little confused on what happens if the CFD nomination votes for "deniers" and the BLP one votes for something else. (I'm honestly unclear on what procedurally happens in that scenario.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll find out. I assume you saw that I gave notice two days ago on the CFD page. I invested a lot of time putting together the BLPN notice and adding notices on all the talk pages, so I strongly hope that it will get attention. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,

The editor Joel Lewis has deleted a lot of stuff [[3]] from the William Happer article on the basis of lack of secondary sources. While I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, do you consider that according to Wiki rules material from primary sources should be deleted?

Thanks,

JS (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Sen: I think that's a topic that's better addressed on the William Happer talk page. I am wary about criticizing JBL's edits here on a page that he doesn't necessarily see. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair, will do. Thanks, JS (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that @NotSeenHere: seems to be engaging in disruptive behaviour in the Maxime Bernier article. This user's talk page is full of people asking him/her to stop it. Specifically, this user seems to be trying to interpret articles in POV ways, rather than simply using exactly what they said. Please provide assistance. Bell1985 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bell1985: I have no special powers and I am reluctant to join a user-conduct discussion here -- that's perhaps better done on WP:ANI. For more authoritative advice, try contacting one of the administrators that has commented on NotSeenHere's talk page: Ground Zero or NeilN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was on User talk:Tomwsulcer and I noticed your comment under the heading Joe Barton. I have no opinion on the merits. I just wanted to suggest that rather than using external links like [4], you can use your edit of 16:23, 21 May 2017, which has a cleaner look and allows you to name the link. Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure whether I'll remember in future, but you're right about the cleanliness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging you because you were the last to comment at Talk:Scott Pruitt before me. Do you have an opinion on Talk:Scott Pruitt#BRD on edits by user Marquardtika, and/or do you think the content in question is a good candidate for an RFC? The talk page discussion doesn't seem to be getting many eyes so I'm wondering what a good next step would be. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marquardtika: Since you noticed my comment, you noticed that nobody cared to support it. I expect that the same would happen if I commented in the thread that involves you. If an RfC happened, I'd support "State what the question was and Pruitt's full reply without interpretation". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- for your kind words following my topic ban of, gosh, almost 2 years ago [5]. Time flies. I guess I should summon the energy to apply for removal of the thing. I can't recall anyone else in the Wiki Climate Wars who drew an indefinite ban..... Quite a slap in the face. Tant pis.

Truth to tell, I'm much less active here than before the late unpleasantness, and doubt that I'll ever be very active in the CC area again. As I'm sure you've noticed, the CAGW hypothesis is pretty much collapsing under its own weight. IMO, of course. Science does self-correct, eventually.

Hope all is well with you. I'm noticeably older, and slower, but we're both in (reasonably) good health. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the second anniversary of your topic ban is coming up. I've noticed your good edits since then in other areas and hope you get recognition for them.

Actually I'm aware of another indefinite ban, on Zigzig20s, see here. It's easy to miss such things if an administrator skips the WP:AE trial and goes direct to judgment.

Re CAGW: no comment, I avoid commenting about it, and I regret that you did, this page is watched.

I'm not encouraging you to appeal. My impression is that most administrators (TParis might be an exception) are happy to discourage editors whose views might disturb the current "peace". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help police this nonsense. 199.7.156.136 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do policing. Happily some administrators have noticed this IP, which is blocked for a while. But if you have comments about the matter, they'd fit better on the Andrew Scheer talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today I added to the Andrew Scheer talk page RfC about Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received criticisms about this edit on the Dinesh D'Souza talk page from two editors. One of them was a properly-formed warning. One of them included what looks like a discretionary sanctions alert regarding American politics, but it isn't in the edit filter log and I don't know that it's valid. To prevent people from being sure I received such an alert, I removed the criticisms and my replies. Click here to see them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looking today I see a warning in the log dated June 8. Presumably I made a mistake. It's valid. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The first critic has been banned. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nardog (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon. Unaccustomed though I am to agreeing with anything you say re The Daily Mail, I thank you for resisting. I tried on a previous occasion to revert a redirection to the essay, but was quickly re-reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like it when you disagree with me. It is refreshing to see someone who posts reasonable arguments based upon logic and evidence instead of calling me a bed-wetting haggis-eating Nazi and thinking that settles the disagreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon: Did you know that the result of that RfC has been overturned? I am assuming that somewhere there has been a discussion that resulted in pointing to the "deprecated" message. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ... Update: today WP:DAILYMAIL points to the Daily Mail RfC again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. [6] But shouldn't the behavioural issue be taken up on the user's talk page in the first instance?

I have not pinged them here as they've asked me not to post to their talk page [7] and so I'm guessing a ping would not be welcome either, but I'm of two minds and your advice on that would be welcome. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to only refer to that issue on the Patrick Moore talk page which is all that I intend to do, and without pinging, since interested parties watch that page (and possibly look at my talk page too). Incidentally thanks for noticing some of the problems that creep into this article, problems which (I believe) are more common in BLPs than they should be. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since at least November 2018, you have repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric by making ludicrous assertions that there is a BLP violation in covering falsehoods and lies by prominent climate change deniers:

• Myron Ebell[8] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[9] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[10][11] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[12] (removal of Climate Feedback)

You have been a participant in discussions[13] where consensus was reached on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[14] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." Back in November 2018,[15] it can be seen as an inadvertent error on your part to claim Climate Feedback was not a RS. However, when you continue doing so in October 2019[16] and January 2020[17], as well as remove other well-sourced text, it amounts to tendentious editing and raises serious questions of your ability to edit on topics related to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2018 you started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which you did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without my knowledge and without discussing my actual objections -- you started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree with you (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP, I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further.

Saying I was "a participant in discussions" (plural) about climatefeedback.org seems not to be the case if you mean on WP:RSN (I did a quick look at the archives for that name). In October 2019 I was a participant in one discussion, where you were one of four editors agreeing that climatefeedback.org is valid "as a source at Guus Berkhout" (quoting the thread heading). Again, it was re-inserted, and I did nothing further.

Your mention of "RSP list" doesn't affect me, that is an essay-class page, it does not override WP:BLP which is a policy page.

For evidence that I "continued doing so" you point to an edit on Guus Berkhout -- which was already mentioned above, this was the edit that caused that WP:RSN thread, which of course happened afterward.

Re the Joanne Nova edit: I explained here. Others disagreed, in my opinion they did not address my points but I did nothing further.

I see that you are now re-asserting that I made a claim "ClimateFeedback was not a RS", I corrected you before, I am doing so again: I did not say that. I referred to WP:BLPSPS, and in the last edit I added that your addition was "also unnecessary, there is already a cite".

Finally, I wish you'd follow WP:TALKNEW ("Keep headings neutral"), but I tend to let such things go.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see this crap continues, years later. Do I want to get back into this? Probably not. Life is short. Ideology-driven fools eds at WP climate topics are many! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Snooganssnoogans's post above. If you persist in tendentious editing and removal of reliably sourced content (or indeed of the sources themselves, as here) in this area you're likely to be topic banned from it. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Since you had already agreed with Snooganssnoogans before I replied, I guess there is nothing to discuss. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in helping with the new BLP article, Mototaka_Nakamura. Cheers. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dare not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony of the Wikipedia Chilling effect. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. If I ever wanted to convince myself to stay far, far away from these loons thoughtful fellow editors.... Good grief.

I did notice you arguing a point based on WP:BLP, and I started to do the same -- except I realized, he's no longer a Living Person! Which doesn't mean his shade can be defamed, of course.

Hope this finds you well & healthy. I suspect this is a futile effort, on both our parts, but who knows? Perhaps I'll look into kicking it up a level. To the oh-so-sympathetic CC-area admins.... Well, maybe not. Sigh. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw, I objected on BLP grounds but failed to convince. I can do no more. As for your comment "Hope this finds you well & healthy" -- yes, thank you. And all the best to you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I suppose I should get off my ass & try to get my five-year[!!] topic ban lifted. But the very thought. Ugh. Same old shit. Pete Tillman (talk)

I looked at the WP:AE discussion. I think that only one of the administrators who decided about you is currently a member of WP:ARBCOM -- Newyorkbrad. And Newyorkbrad did not answer the question what a proper duration should be. So maybe you'd find that the current bunch isn't pro-indef. However, you might be criticized for whatever you've done recently, and might be asked to confess your supposed sins and recant as part of an appeal process, so my unsolicited advice is: avoid WP:AE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that horrible thing, too, for the first time since then. Brings back memories, it does! Feh. It's a wonder the Project hasn't run off even more non-group-think editors! A CC editor needs thicker skin than mine, I'm afraid. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tillman: Sorry, I don't know why I had the idea that only arbcom folks issue bans via wp:ae. Any uninvolved administrator can. Anyway, you can see how Yae4 has fared on a WP:AE issue after being accused of bad cites, including 2 re Mototaka Nakamura, who was mentioned in the previous thread. That might indicate for you what your appeal chances would be. I recommend that any replies should avoid criticism of administrators. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Recalling just how unpleasant the "Star Chamber" proceeding was last time, I'm in no hurry to go hat in hand to those same assholes fine, hard-working admins! I know, bad attitude. What can I say? Package deal! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AE issue is archived here. Others mentioned this talk page thread here and here.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "corroborated" has been misused.[18] Please let me know if you still object to me restoring that word and we can discuss it on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 13:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX added "corroborated" on the WP:WTW guideline page. I reverted with the edit summary "Why? Has the word been misused?" and see from the above post that it was used. I believe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch is an appropriate forum. If it goes there and if I object after seeing the argument, I will reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You reversed a date update regarding Sean Hannity offer to be water boarded in 2011

Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't he as of this date 15/9/2020 not been water boarded for charity or any other reason Keith Olbermann would have donated $1,000 for every second of waterboarding Hannity underwent.

if he had he would have shouted it all over his show and the internet if for no other reason to embarrass Keith olberman it is imposable to source something that hasn't happened

the edit was just a date update and undoing it is draconian in the extreme

Dixon hill (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Dixon hill[reply]

You can take this to the Sean Hannity talk page, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... For pointing out that a topic ban doesn't apply to BLP vios. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment had more caveats and nuances than that. And I can't be depended on to repeat it. However, perhaps this is a good time to hope you have a merry yuletide + disease-free 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you! Best for 2021. Gotta be better than this year! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Gulutzan,

I have long been puzzled about a habit (?) of yours whose significance is unclear to me. So, with a bit of free time on my hands and a couple of your recent edits on my watchlist, I am writing out of idle curiosity, in the hope that you will explain it to me. I apologize in advance for the verbosity of my question.

As an example, consider this diff. The edit summary is the title of the section that you were commenting in. My understanding of how WP's editing software works is that this is automatically pre-filled when one clicks the "edit" button next to a section heading; for example, when I start editing the same section, my edit summary is pre-filled with the text "/* Edit warring over conviction in first sentence of lead */". If I were to submit an edit with that edit summary, I would get an edit summary like this, with the same text, but that the software automatically converts to a section link. I presume that the theory here is that another editor can more easily find the place where one made a change by following the section link to the associated section (and indeed, I personally find this very convenient in practice). It appears to me that you (manually?) remove the slashes and asterices from your edit summaries, leaving the same text but without this convenient functionality. Am I correct about that? And, if so, can you explain why you do it?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My habit involves clicking "edit this page" at the page top, not clicking "edit" by the section heading. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and then you ... manually copy in the section heading as your edit summary? If that's the case, I would ask you to consider also adding in the /* ... */ before and after, to create the convenient link for other editors. All the best, JBL (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just click "diff". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I am competent in the basic functionality of WP; clicking "diff" does something, but it is not equivalent. Here is the use-case: you leave a comment in an existing discussion on a noticeboard with 40 active discussions; to appreciate your comment, it is necessary to have the full context of the ongoing discussion (which might include several comments before and several comments after yours). If you behaved in the "usual" way, one could click on the link and be taken directly to the latest version of the relevant section; because of your choices, additional navigation is required. This is not extremely important, but I am not mistaken that your choice is nonstandard and inconvenient for other editors in some situations, and I (again) ask that you consider slightly modifying your behavior for the benefit of other editors. (It is not my intent to badger, nor to solicit an argument; I do not plan to post further about this.) --JBL (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too do not plan to post further about this.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too have wondered about this. It is indeed inconvenient (IOW tends toward uncollegial) for other editors. -- Valjean (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for reverting my collapse of the discussion! I was honestly not aware of the policy for involved parties but it makes sense since you pointed it out. I'll be aware of that going forward.

Best, Jonmaxras (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonmaxras I'm glad you were good with my revert, but I don't think you actually violated a policy and arguably I shouldn't have reacted as I did, sorry. Now another editor has reverted my revert, and I'm willing to let it lie. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that my warning will be rescinded, but I appreciate the sentiment . Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now archived. I'd hoped that a quote of WP:EDITWAR might have some effect but administrators are free to ignore it. The ongoing RfC has some sensible comments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my edit summary did not save when I removed that comment on Talk:Gab (social network). It's inappropriate to reply to a closed discussion, and preferred that the person start a new section to discuss improving the article, so I removed that comment. I won't revert your revert, but it was not a good idea to replace that comment. Especially since the comment is mostly directed at another user, not actually toward changing the article itself. Not to mention the horribly loaded "Star of David" language. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds: We're talking about this edit where you removed -- not collapsed, removed -- a comment by Jeffwalters. I regret that your edit summary somehow was lost, of course if there had been an explanation I would have understood better. I agree that Jeffwalters's query was not appropriate in that position but it might be possible to follow the WP:TALKO advice "Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one ...". So add a heading, eh? As for how loaded "Star of David" language is, well, that's what I wanted to reply to on Talk:Gab (social network), and in order to reply I had to restore the question. It was an FYI reply, but (I hope) is informative about the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment. I would absolutely restore to the stable revision, but here is the difference between the stable version and the current version. The content is virtually identical, except for the fact that an unsourced piece of information is now sourced. Also, a piece of information about his family was removed, but that is separate from the relevant dispute, and based on the talk page discussion about that removal, it does not appear to be under contention, with the removing user saying they don't mind if anyone wants to restore it, and the other user saying they don't want to restore it at this time. So restoring to the stable version would not do anything to deescalate the dispute, it would simply keep the status quo while removing sources for no reason. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm Please look more closely and you'll see that the paragraph starting with the words "Wade replied:" which had been in the article since 16 January 2015 was removed. From the talk page you can see how contentious that was. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, for some background on a recent revert. I added a source to this article to try and back up the assertion he is a Climate Change denier (I did not add the claim itself), You've reverted the source but the article still states that he is an 'Outspoken Climate Change Denier'. Did you mean to also remove the claim that he is a denier? I see it's an ongoing issue on the article. JeffUK (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about my reversion of a cite on the Paul Nuttall article. You're right, there has been some discussion about this on the article's talk page. I think that would be the best place to discuss our edits and opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter,

Just saw you removed my edit from the article on Robert Mercer...

Here's the first line of the article in The Guardian

"The company, SCL Elections, went on to be bought by Robert Mercer"

I don't understand why his ownership was removed from the article as "uncredited from the source' as this is literally in the first paragraph.

In the book Mindf*ck by Christopher Wylie he describes Mercer's ownership of Cambridge Analytica as follows

For a principal investment of $15 million, Mercer took 90 per cent ownership of Cambridge Analytica, and SCL would take 10 per cent. Wylie, Christopher. Mindf*ck (p. 92). Profile. Kindle Edition.

I would like to add both. Thanks. Kranke133 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual and complete: edit summary: "Undid revisions as of 30 July 2021 by Kranke133. The quoted words appear nowhere in the cited article, and if they were unquoted they'd probably still need attribution." Well, do the quoted words -- ""global elections management agency"" -- appear in the cited article? No. Now here are some quoted words that actually appear in a Wikipedia guideline, MOS:SIC: "... the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced". This is now moot since there was another edit later, but if you'd like to argue more please do so on the article talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter,

Appreciate the judicious monitoring of the Post's page and helpful direction for how I should go about making edits to bias/political stance. Nice find on the iPolitics article as well. To respond to your concern that the iPolitics page ref"Survey suggests large number of Canadians have likely read 'fake' news stories". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2021./ref does not line up with my description of the Abacus surve ref"Canadian News Media And "Fake News" Under A Microscope". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2021.(registration required)/ref: I suspect you are getting at the numbers in the graphics on iPolitics aren't the same as my summary. You are correct, but that is because the iPolitics article only uses the results broken down by political party (i.e. Liberals and Conservatives). The overall results are the ones I am reporting. If you would like to verify, you can register for free at the Abacus site to view the original survey report.

If you have another concern about inconsistency, please clarify. I would happily discuss. Balancingakt (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed angle brackets in your post so it would stop messing up my talk page. My reply is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iiuc, both the current WP:RS#Deprecated wording there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something and the WP:RS/QUOTE dictum to cite the original source argue for inclusion of Robinson’s view published in OG as a cite. Apologies if I misunderstand. Humanengr (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a thread on Talk:Piers_Robinson, I will reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have objected to that close. I want to make sure you understand something I wrote there: "While Peter himself may not be consciously part of the effort, this still serves to aid a long-standing effort to gradually delete properly-sourced views from one side of the political spectrum, only leaving the views of Trump supporters and their denials of the Trump campaign's involvement in illicit contacts with Russians and downplaying of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."

I do not consider you to be part of that effort, even if your actions contribute toward it. I don't see you as a fringe editor (one who depends on unreliable sources and seeks to undermine content from RS), but they are certainly pleased with your efforts there. -- Valjean (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked again at User_talk:FormalDude#Closing_a_Steele_Dossier_RfC and greatly regret that you persuaded FormalDude to change the close. I have objected to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After my objection on FormalDude's talk page, Valjean commented more about me, FormalDude declared the altered decision to keep the sentences is final, I declared that I don't intend to go to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (I believe the closer was wrong to accept a compromise that the discussion participants did not accept, but believing the closer was wrong is not considered sufficient grounds for appeal.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when guys don't use the talk page at Pierre Poilievre. This Unfinite guy is becoming annoying-it's like he's misunderstanding the written text in the article and in the source that backs it up. Can you have a quick look at the article... maybe I'm wrong. A fresh set of eyes would be nice. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I assume you have informed the editor you're discussing, and although I assume you have asked for opinion from people who might disagree with you as well as people who might agree with you, I won't participate in this particular matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am VickKiang. Thanks for your participation in the RfC for Sky News Australia, and apologies for the trouble it induced. I will make sure to follow NPOV in OP next time. VickKiang (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Rfc- Sky News Australia. I don't think it's possible to use the four-way template including "deprecation" without showing a POV, but I don't usually go much beyond !voting "Bad RfC". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your reasoning on the reversion of my link on The Daily Mail due MOS:LWQ for me? I looked over the guideline and it appears to me that I didn't do any thing wrong, and the section edited was not even a quotation of a source. Please note I had not seen the guideline before editing and I am fairly new to editing on wikipedia regularly. Thanks! Flameperson (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about this reversion. The words "unreliable source" are inside quotation marks, the ultimate source of the words is The Daily Mail RfC, MOS:LWQ requires "... meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." and clearly the closers of the RfC didn't say deprecated. If you want to contest this, please do so on the Daily Mail talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the original source! originally i looked for a link that mentioned unreliable source and the daily mail, and eventually made my way to the depreciated sources page with out realizing unreliable source wasn't mentioned. i see how that violated MOS:LWQ, and i agree on reversion. -Flameperson (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: my reversion was reverted and I took it to the Daily Mail talk page, thread = Link to Wikipedia:Deprecated Sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above came shortly after an objection to my post on the talk page of an American politician's bio. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are intending that irrelevant remark to invalidate the notices, I believe that would be mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest thread that led to a formal warning one comment included: "I believe this ds/alert issued by SPECIFICO could be construed as reactive to the content dispute ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, per your comment at 15:53, it would be wisest to drop this. Like it or not, most DS alerts are placed after someone has noticed an issue; if there had been no issue, no one would have thought to add the template. The one doing it should just be careful not to make the adding of the template part of the dispute by bringing the dispute into the same thread when they add the template. Ideally, that should be done in a separate thread. But....sometimes, because of other comments, often from other editors, it becomes logical to comment further down in the same thread, as it's common for editors to carry on disputes on user talk pages, and they often do it in a logical place, such as after a DS warning that covers the same issue. (Yes, other editors know the real reason the DS alert was posted, so they comment there. !)

That's life, and it's sometimes best to just accept what one cannot change. Pursuing it could easily be interpreted as a battlefield mentality that does all it can to find faults in others, a petty seeking to blow up a minor and subjective interpretation into an attack on one's opponent. It can also be interpreted as a resistance to accepting the advice in the DS alert. I guess my main point is that it's better to de-escalate rather than escalate issues. Otherwise, keep up the good work and have a nice day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have received DS notifications, but your response here and editing at Rebel News (your ownership and whitewashing efforts there are not seriously threatened) seem to indicate that you don't consider them of any worth. That's worrying. NPOV demands that the views of opponents are included, hence some of your arguments are bogus. Rebel News and Levant are clearly climate change denialists. That is their POV, and whitewashing that fact is wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have previously received DS notifications and been warned, including above at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Discretionary_sanctions_for_climate_change by User:Bishonen, a topic ban warning you waved off.

You continue to whitewash climate change denialist terminology and remove sources, sometimes in violation of NPOV which demands that the views of opponents be included. You have also (many times) been involved in discussions about climate change "skeptics", which you refuse to accept as "deniers". That issue will hang over you until you decide to accept Wikipedia's (because we accept RS) way of interpreting that issue.

Stop objecting to the use of "denialist" language for so-called "skeptics", as they are not real scientific skeptics. They are propagandists who misuse words. As long as you refuse to accept that, a topic ban sword will hang over your head, ready to fall if you take a misstep, and you keep crossing that line. We shouldn't have to monitor you all the time. A topic ban would free us of that burden. Climate change "skeptics" are "deniers". Repeat that a thousand times. If you won't accept that, then voluntarily stay away from the topic as you are opposed to RS and Wikipedia's purpose on this matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above are comments arriving after matters discussed in Rebel News talk page thread Climate Change Denial Again. I added a subsection heading. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on making your science denial agenda very clear. Stop whitewashing climate change denialists. When we document their nonsense, we also must include how RS treat it, but you delete that. That is forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC issues at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News_Australia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is now archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, Please explain why you removed the Globe and Mail’s political position. Multiple editors have provided sources and reasoning for the “Center-right” attribution. I may have missed but, there doesn’t appear to be a reason provided for your deletion. Cheers Luxphos (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary contained "... See talk page = Political position", i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Globe_and_Mail#Political_position_2. An administrator tried to ping you during the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since 30 July 2022 RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science] has proceeded. I counted some !votes, maybe wrongly, maybe too early:

 6 deprecate
14 deprecate or downgrade
10 downgrade or deprecate
44 downgrade
 1 downgrade or status quo
--
75

 5 status quo or downgrade
 1 split
 1 maybe revise wording
 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote)
 3 status quo or upgrade
--
11

48 status quo
 9 upgrade or status quo
10 upgrade
 1 not downgrade
 1 bad RfC
--
69

I'm the only one who has !voted "Bad RfC". Maybe I'm also the only one who has noticed that there is no {{rfc}} tag, and no listing in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Updated. This is the final update because an administrator closed with a claim that there was a consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another way to parse those same numbers:

 6 deprecate
22 deprecate or downgrade/downgrade or deprecate
39 downgrade
--
67 deprecate or downgrade


45 status quo
--
45


 6 downgrade or status quo/status quo or downgrade
10 status quo or upgrade/upgrade or status quo
--
 4 status quo or upgrade


10 upgrade
 --
10


Others that can't be counted


 1 split
 1 maybe revise wording
 1 upgrade or downgrade (not a sockpuppet !vote)
--
 3

1 not downgrade

1 bad RfC

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​Hi Peter! I am fresh out from climate change ban prison, and spent the ~962 days avoiding "climate change broadly construed". FYI, I had to nod my head, but explicitly refused to swear allegiance to "the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources". Anyway, do you have any information that could help give me the wisdom to accept it would be a complete waste of my time to get involved again? Nevermind, commented out some thoughts. After skimming your talk page, it is evident enough. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you, I believe you generally acted well, I am happy that the ban is over. Since you've skimmed above on my talk page, you know that I have to be cautious myself, I will not give advice and will not promise to be helpful. However, I'm glad you stopped by with greetings, and I return them cheerily. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Gulutzan, I noticed you removed my edit regrading the National Post political alignment. The source I quoted has been used for the Toronto Sun Wiki page political alignment line. I don’t want to undo your change without understanding your reasoning for the deletion. Please advise as to your objection to the political alignment. Cheers. Lucis-Phos (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, on the talk page, where such discussions belong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest in not rubbing things in Korny's face, I'll respond here. I'm not going to pull individual diffs because it's a huge waste of time, but a quick glance through the discussion shows: Support both GENSEX and all politics Dronebogus, Support TBAN from GENSEX and AP2 LilianaUwU, Support GENSEX and AP tban FormalDude, Support tban from LoTT, GENSEX and American politics generally Ravenswing, Support broad tban from GENSEX and AP. TimothyBlue, Support broad TBAN from GENSEX and AP Wes sideman, Support. Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well ValarianB, Support — Permanent ban from LoTT & temp. ban for GENSEX and American Politics IP, Support Longterm (6 months minimum) tempban from LoTT and tempban from american politics Googleguy007, Support a ban from both GENSEX and American politics Aquillion, per Aquillion Andrevan, I'd also support a tban from GENSEX and AP sche, Support a ban from GENSEX and American politics XOR'easter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: I'd asked "... what diffs in the ban proposal are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" Sorry, that was too short so you misunderstood. I'd seen that about 12 editors (out of about 30) supported an AMPOL2 ban, but the diffs that I saw were about GENSEX. I'm sure you know that if this had been a WP:AE request there would be a requirement for "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it". So, less shortly: what diffs, supplied by the AMPOL2 accusers, in the ban proposal, are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Eventually I took this to WP:AN, it has now been archived with no action. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PG, if you want a formal close, you can unarchive and ask for one. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I had more-or-less avoided Wikipedia for the last few months, so I didn't see this until just now. Thank you for trying to undo my topic ban, which I agree was handled in a very bizarre way, where most of the diffs used to show that I was a bad editor are still reflected in their respective articles (at least, last time I checked) - meaning that they couldn't have been that bad! - and where a minority of people voting to ban me from writing about American politics was judged to be a "clear consensus". And your "close challenge" seems to have also been handled bizarrely: simply archived, with no resolution. Anyway, thanks for your support. Perhaps you've moved on by now and no longer care, but if you still feel any involvement in helping with my case, let me know if I can help in any way. I'm not sure whether I ever want to edit Wikipedia again, but I would still like to see the American Politics ban overturned, no matter what. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're welcome, but -- sorry -- I failed. Given the dismissive or even strongly negative responses in that thread, I concluded that demanding a formal close would be futile. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. In all honestly, do you think I have any chance of overturning it? The circumstances around my banning just seem so dubious (and ideological). I'm thinking of this RfC, for example. My removing the "Critics of Black Lives Matter" category from Libs of TikTok was brought up by various people as an example of how biased an editor I was. A month later, the RfC determined, by a vote of 12 to 3 (!), that in fact that category does not belong there. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off pinging a random active admin with your question. I've shown that I'm no good at predicting what they'll do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too late I spent two minutes counting AP2 tban supporters who were involved, i.e. had commented on Jordan Peterson talk page which was the evidence against Korny O'Near. I counted four. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be responding to pings for a while. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't made any edits lately so I'm not sure if you are still around. In case you are around, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masterhatch: I was on a long trip abroad. Now I'm back in Edmonton at last. Thank you for the greeting, and I wish the same for you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that you care, and decline with thanks. However, you can see from what's above that I do answer most questions and ignore most critiques, but don't erase them unless the language is foul. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The page is there if you ever change your mind, but I do respect your choice. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V has two bulleted lists. One is in the lead, and one is in the first section. The point behind the edit was to make the lists (almost) match. It's not really desirable for one of them to say "quotations" and the other to say "direct quotations", because although we intend the same thing, someone will get confused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I assume this is about my revert of your edit of WP:V. You made multiple changes but since you only mention one of them I'll mention that you had multiple choices: (1) You could have done nothing, which would be a wonderful act if there was no problem or dispute (2) You could have chosen "quotations" rather than "direct quotations", which in my opinion would have been far better (3) You could have gone to the talk page and proposed the change in advance. As it happens, another editor re-did your change and I'm not going to re-undo unless others come along. Any further discussion of PAG tinkering can occur on the PAG talk pages, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary indicated that you didn't understand what I meant by "make the two lists match". I thought you might like to understand. We started with two short bullet lists that had similar language; we ended with two short bullet lists that have identical language. If you think that direct quotations, which redirects to quotations, should be written as "quotations" instead, or if you otherwise think that the wrong option was chosen for any given line, then you could WP:PGBOLD, or you could take it up on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was "I don't know what the edit summary "make the two lists match" means, I do know that this looks like a substantial change of the policy." The only good thing about PGBOLD edits is they can be undone, but I already tried that. I've already said I won't re-undo unless others come along. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does ...reverted PAG insertions... mean in [19]?
ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAG Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Just noticed you are from Edmonton. I was just there on vacation . Everyone i met was so friendly. And Ma Ma O beach is a gem.. Take care! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate timing, since I will be absent during the vote. There is a candidate I'd like to promote, but, since my talk page has lurkers who might react to my opinion by going the opposite way, I'll cryptically say I hope no pink planets prevail. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be responding to pings for a while. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users 4 Oversighters 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Masterhatch (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}