User talk:Schoeppe

Welcome!

Hello, Schoeppe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- JamesTeterenko 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party colours

The current CPC may be the legal successor of the old PCs, but it's also the legal successor of both the Canadian Alliance and, by extension, the Reform Party of Canada. As a result, the CPC's colour has to be different from the PC's colour, because it's unacceptable POV to privilege the CPC's relationship to the PCs over its relationship to Reform and the Alliance. The colours are to stay as they are, and you may be editblocked if you disregard this. Bearcat 11:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new CPC is most certainly not the same thing as the pre-1942 CPC. It's not even close to being the same thing. Bearcat 15:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Party Colours

The 3RR is the three-revert rule, which says that you cannot revert a page more than three times in the same day (unless you are fighting vandalism). Bearcat gave you a warning because your edits go against current consensus of how we colour the tables about Canadian politics. Your argument about the topic does have some legitimacy to it, and I know that you are not trying to be a vandal, but you cannot edit pages to match your view unless you first convince the general consensus of the community to change its policy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that confuses me most about your edits is why you make the PCs different from the old and new CPCs. Do you think that the old and new parties have more in common with each other than with the PC party in between them?

In any case, the problem with making the old and new CPCs the same colour is that it ignores the Alliance Party, which contributed more MPs to the new party than did the old party. It would actually be more accurate to give the new CPC the Alliance's old colour, but that would also be POV. The compromise is to give it a whole new colour.

As for your second question, the main way to get around disputes is to ask more people from the relevant wikiproject (in this case WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada) to weigh in. You may also want to read this policy on Resolving disputes in Wikipedia. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In proposing that the new CPC have the same coloura s the old CPC I was trying to follow the arguments you made about legal entities to a logical conclusion. I personally feel that the historical CPC through to the current CPC, including the PCs should be the same colour. However, there is validity in the argument that the PCs and the new CPC should be separate colours. Political opponents of the new CPC argue that it is merely the Canadian Alliance with a new name and all vestiges of the old PC Party of Canada have forever disappeared, including any links to the historical CPC. By portraying the Prime Ministers of all tory parties other than the current CPC as the same colour while giving the new CPC a new colour it definitely corresponds with that viewpoint held by those people. Definitely not NPOV. Unfortunately, Bearcat has lowered the discussion to the level of personal attacks, so there isn't really much to discuss with him anymore. Please see the discussion on Minority Governments in Canada (sorry I don't know how to link directly to a given page.) I appreciate the way you have dealt with this. Hopefully I will have the time to look at the dispute resolution mechanism. Thanks. Schoeppe 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schoeppe, you have not characterized the opposing argument fairly. Here it is in a nutshell: there was a party from 1867 to 2003 that changed its name several times. It was called the Conservative Party, the Liberal-Conservative Party, the Unionist Party, the National Liberal and Conservative Party, National Government and the Progressive Conservative Party. In 2003, it dissolved itself, and the majority of its members joined witht he members of the Canadian Alliance to form a new Conservative Party.

Because the new Conservative Party was founded by members of two previous parties, it should not have the same colour as either of them. If it has the same colour as the CA, this implies that it is a continuation of the CA, and the CA has "taken over" the party. If it has the same colour as the PC Party, it implies that it is a continuation of the PC Party, and the CA members just folded their tent and joined the PC Party.

Neither is the case. it is a new party, formed by members of two former parties, and so it should have a new colour. I hope this helps clear things up. Ground Zero | t 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your last comment on my talk page. Ground Zero | t 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm 117Avenue. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of female first ministers in Canada seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think your revert leaves some question as to why the polls for the PCs dropped, without providing any polls. The blanket "she resigned after dropping in the polls" does not give a full picture of the reason as to her resignation? If a link to 'polls' was provided it would provide some more information as to the reason for the resignation.

This article logs the timeline of the events leading up to Redford's resignation. ^[1]

There is nothing explicitly mentioning polls in the above link. I believe going back to my edit with a link to this article provides better information as to her resignation while remaining neutral.--Schoeppe (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the other leaders? That table entry is only meant to be a summary of each leader's career timeline. The article does not exist to list how women have failed at Canadian politics. 117Avenue (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make an edit to other leader's sections in the article, just to Redford's. Does the fact I made only one edit to the article diminish the value of the edit to the article?

I thought the article existed to provide a factual examination of the careers of female first ministers from a neutral point of view. I was of the belief you reverted my edit because it wasn't NPOV. Did you look at the article I linked to? The title of the linked article is "What lead to Alison Redford's resignation." Why state 'she resigned after dropping in the polls' without support when an article that provides a timeline of events leading up to her resignation exists and supports my edit.

Is your concern with the neutrality of my edit or listing "how women have failed at Canadian politics"? The vast majority of politicians, male or female, end their careers in what can be termed 'failure'. Be it losing caucus support, losing an election or resigning for fear of one of the first two taking place. It's not a slight to provide a neutral, honest assessment of why a particular leader resigned.

Could you please be more explicit on how my edit, if supported with the link above, is 'less than neutral'?Schoeppe (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what 117Avenue meant by "what of the other leaders" is that we can't give the political details about just one leader's departure and not the others. But doing a political analysis about all of them would bloat the table, so it's probably best to keep the table just about statistics like time in office. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arctic.gnome. I thank you for the reply, but I don't know why you sent it. Are you going to delete the current explanations for why the politicians left office? Your explanation for the reverts by 117Avenue does not correspond with the explanation they provided. There are reasons in the article given for all of the leader's departures. My edit, despite being supported was not one that 117Avenue found acceptable. 117Avenue was very explicit with their explanation, i.e."The article does not exist to list how women have failed at Canadian politics." The vast majority of politicians fail at some point in their career. A truly neutral article would provide insight as to why the politicians left. No one other than 117Avenue cares enough for this article. I have no intention of investing time in edits that are changed by users because they don't like the 'message' being sent in the edit. Politicians fail all the time. However, 117Avenue found the truth unacceptable, Schoeppe (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic.gnome is correct. Each entry has a sentence on how each woman left the position. I think these sentences are neutral, and I think expanding that explanation is too much for a table format. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kids for cash scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billions. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Schoeppe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Schoeppe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Schoeppe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia and I was not allowed to post their story as a source. Why do you think the New York Post is considered unreliable? In light of your concerns why was I allowed to post the source? Schoeppe (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is so bad there's an edit filter. That the Post is a little less bad doesn't mean it's OK. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter clearly illustrates that the community has agreed The Daily Mail is an unreliable source. What tells us the Post isn't OK other than your say so?

There are multiple sources reporting this story. Are you going to revert any edit because you don't want the story to be part of the article on Emhoff and claim whichever source used "isn't ok"? Schoeppe (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the talkpage, where the matter is being discussed. You need multiple concordant reliable sources for that sort of thing. Read WP:BLP. As for the Post, see WP:NYPOST: There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics. And then read WP:BLP again. The Daily Mail edit filter is unique, that doesn't mean that everything else goes, or that it's OK if an edit filter isn't tripped. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Are you going to revert any edit because you don't want the story to be part of the article on Emhoff and claim whichever source used "isn't ok"?

I have seven concordant sources that I can use for this entry. I reviewed WP:NYPOST and found that The Times of India is rated as " No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" the additional considerations in this case revolve around advertorials and a single AI-generated article. I will re-post my edit with the Times of India story as the source. Schoeppe (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have high-quality sources for BLP assertions. A source that is to be "used with caution" fails that test if it's the best you can find. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you were going to make an argument to reject this edit.

The caution in the "used with caution" revolves around the use of advertorials by The Times of India and "at least one AI generated article". Nothing in the story can be classified as an advertorial. Nothing points to it being AI generated.

What is the evidence that this source "fails that test"? Schoeppe (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And see the talkpage notice, which applies to the article: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caution in the "used with caution" revolves around the use of advertorials by The Times of India and "at least one AI generated article". Nothing in the story can be classified as an advertorial. Nothing points to it being AI generated.

What definition are you using to call this poorly sourced? Schoeppe (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Acroterion is referring to this text at WP:TOI: [The Times of India] has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Schoeppe, you are expected to do the necessary work to acquaint yourself with policy and sourcing standards, rather than having it all spoon-fed to you via edit filters and advice from other editors. We should not have to work through this bit-by-bit. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spoon-feeding. You don't want this news released. The snarky, childish language you are using proves your bias.

Yes, if you want a certain point of view reflected in the viewpoint of the article then you have to defend why.

As to your assertion that the New York Post is an unreliable source I will point to this article. Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy.

The New York Post broke this story in October of 2020. An article was not posted on Wikipedia until August of 2021. Mission accomplished by those who wanted to suppress "a front-page story that presented emails from the laptop, alleging they showed corruption by Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee and Hunter Biden's father"

That this story was suppressed by many media outlets (including CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times) and Wikipedia only looks bad on those who went out of their way to suppress the story. Even the New York Times later admitted this. https://archive.ph/20240723084209/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html

That you use snark and condescension to defend suppressing the story of Doug Emhoff's abusive behaviour will lead to the same types of stories.

If you want to be officious as a way of hiding Emhoff's abusive behaviour that is something you will have to live with. The bias in the Emhoff slapping story is as apparent as was the bias in the Hunter Biden laptop story. Schoeppe (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news source. Our articles can intentionally be slow at times as we wait for sources, and sometimes for several sources, to report on an event. The New York Times article you mentioned is all the more reason to be slow about what we add, since it refers particularly to statements made by the Times and other publications, not to silence on particular topics. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schoeppe, your inclusion of the content and the sourcing used to support it has been challenged as not meeting the rigorous requirments of WP:BLP. The onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion of the material prior to restoring it. You can do this either via the article talk page or via WP:BLPN. You may not agree with the policy, but you need to abide by it.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Schoeppe. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Play the ball, not the man. Accusing a Wikipedia administrator of attempting to "hide" information about a living public person is silly. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how this is 'playing the ball, not the man'.

"you are expected to do the necessary work to acquaint yourself with policy and sourcing standards, rather than having it all spoon-fed to you via edit filters and advice from other editors. We should not have to work through this bit-by-bit."

If you want to criticize me for 'attacking other editors' why not say anything to the editor who put out the spoon-feed critique? Schoeppe (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you to do your homework rather than demanding that edit filters and other editors do it for you is not a personal attack, nor childish. You must work with the entire policy, from the beginning, rather than probing boundaries and waiting for other editors to tell you it's wrong. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to explain to you how your comments are a gross violation of WP:AGF, and suggesting that administrators are complicit in some sort of conspiracy--well, it's not acceptable. And if that really needs an explanation, we can question your competence. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a simple question. You encouraged me to play the ball, not the man. I wasn't aware the user condescending to me and unquestionably "playing the man" was an administrator. He never identified himself as such.

This was the question. Please explain how the following is 'playing the ball, not the man'.

"you are expected to do the necessary work to acquaint yourself with policy and sourcing standards, rather than having it all spoon-fed to you via edit filters and advice from other editors. We should not have to work through this bit-by-bit."

The hyperbolic language is laughable. I assumed you were acting in good faith until you refused to answer my question.

Administrators suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story throughout the 2020 presidential election. I have no idea if any of the administrators involved are still active on Wikipedia, but ignoring that fact is not a conspiracy.

Again how is "And if that really needs an explanation, we can question your competence." Schoeppe (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/timeline-what-led-to-alberta-premier-alison-redford-s-resignation-1.1737351

[1] ttp://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/timeline-what-led-to-alberta-premier-alison-redford-s-resignation-1.1737351

[1]