User talk:Personisinsterest

Your GA nomination of Uncommitted National Movement

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uncommitted National Movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Spookyaki -- Spookyaki (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncommitted National Movement

The article Uncommitted National Movement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Uncommitted National Movement and Talk:Uncommitted National Movement/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Spookyaki -- Spookyaki (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncommitted National Movement

The article Uncommitted National Movement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uncommitted National Movement for comments about the article, and Talk:Uncommitted National Movement/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Spookyaki -- Spookyaki (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Junlper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junlper, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kamala Harris and the Israel-Hamas war

Hello, Personisinsterest. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Kamala Harris and the Israel-Hamas war".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Tel al-Sultan attack

On 19 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tel al-Sultan attack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a viral image called for global attention to the humanitarian crisis following the Tel al-Sultan attack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tel al-Sultan attack), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Discussion of the Democratic Party (United States) and the progressive faction; edit dispute

I'm willing to include content about the progressive faction's influence on the Democratic Party, but I have RS about how progressivism was rejected in 2024 by the American national electorate, and not just among White voters. These are both shortly before and after the election on November 5, 2024. We can also include Hispanics and Asian voters, but Democrats have been lost significant ground with the latter two groups in 2024.

There is a plausible argument for the Democratic Party becoming more progressive at the state and local level, but at the national level, Biden's presidency has been perceived by voters as a failure. The progressive faction of the Democratic Party has proved to be an electoral and policy failure in 2024. With Trump back in the White House for a second term, the Democratic Party is shifting rightward, not leftward as it did during Trump's first term.

It must be said that the Democratic Party's support is concentrated among educated Whites and African Americans. I personally oppose the term "working class," for several reasons. Here are my two biggest reasons.

• For one thing, it ignores how the Democratic Party's support among Whites voters is extremely strongly correlated with education. It goes up, from High school or less, to an Associate's degree, to some college, to a Bachelor's degree, to a graduate degree. It's entirely educational, with little to do with income.
• The term "working class" ignores those who are retired (i.e. 65+) or unemployed, thereby becoming an oxymoron. A significant percentage of voters are older than 65 or not employed, despite not having a college degree.

Note: I voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, and agree with the Democratic Party on most but not all issues. I am an Asian American man demographically and a PhD student in statistics. I am not a political activist or Donald Trump supporter, just a Wikipedia editor.

Sources: JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement that progressivism was rejected is obviously not neutral and cannot be backed up. There is a case that some progressive social policies have become unpopular and possibly damaged democrats, and it is reliably sourced. I don’t mind that you want to include that. I do mind that you take away objective information about the wing, about how the Squad and AOC have influenced the country.

Also, you do seem to be an activist. You are mentioning things that have nothing to do with our edits, like the term “working-class” and racial and college-educated statistics. I have nothing to do with that. If you want to discuss significant changes to the article, do it on the talk page. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Correlation between Education and Liberalism

If I might ask, what is your educational attainment, to see if there is any Actor–observer asymmetry? What Wikipedia editors, who are mainly college graduates, often fail to realize is that we are not demographically representative of the American electorate.

I've changed my mind, the article can keep the mention of the Squad (U.S. Congress). I'm not a political activist, just a statistician and electoral analyst who uses RS. One of the most important statistics, from Educational attainment in the United States, is that a majority of American adults don't have college degrees.

My best-edited articles are Solid South and Social class in the United States. I am extremely familiar with electoral geography and demographics.

The reality is that Modern liberalism in the United States is extremely strongly correlated with educational attainment; see the graph I made in RStudio. Progressivism appeals most to the well-educated, unlike say the Old Left of the New Deal coalition.

Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/progressive-left/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I am admittedly progressive, and I don’t hide that. I could have bias. We all have bias. I’m still neutral in my editing though. I’m not denying that progressivism mostly appeals to rich white kids. I don’t object to you including racial and education information in the article, honestly it’s probably for the best. I’m glad that you agree to include information about the squad. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I am personally progressive on most political issues, with some exceptions. But fundamentally, the United States is not a secretly progressive country. It's depressing yet something I've come to acknowledge, looking through the electoral statistics and history. The reason the United States is so unequal is there has been no major war to meaningfully reduce inequality.

As I've studied history and study economics, the fundamental reality is that inequality almost always goes up in peacetime; see the linked book. To meaningfully reduce economic inequality, mass violence and death are usually required, including wars, plagues, and revolutions. The United States only ended slavery after the American Civil War. The Jim Crow South only began to end after World War II.

The world becoming more violent in the 2020s, despite the tragedy, is actually a sign that inequality has peaked and mass violence must run its course. As tragic as the Israel-Hamas War has been, it led to the toppling of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Book link: The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)