User talk:C.J. Griffin
Disambiguation link notification for September 9
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the socialist movement in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Attribute citations and POV-pushing
[edit]Since you don't want to answer, I will post this again. I notice that you consistently present strong interpretations from individual authors as if they were established facts. You should learn to attribute your citations. You should have enough experience on Wikipedia to know that this is not acceptable. Furthermore, please don't behave like an activist and respect WP:NPOV. PJ Geest (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- You obviously don't know what you are talking about, as the majority of new content I add is attributed to sources. Here is one example of an article I have edited recently, Second Gilded Age, although there are a plethora more which demonstrate this. And I sure as hell don't need a lecture from you, given your own POV pushing on degrowth. So be careful before you harass other editors on their talk pages by casting aspersions.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am talking about edits like this: [1] & this: [2]. I contributed more about the scientific consensus on degrowth, so this is not POV-pushing. You have no clue about what WP:NPOV is about, or you know the rules but you choose to ignore the rules and interpret it in your own way. Everything deviating from your own opinion is POV for you. This is not what WP:NPOV is about. POV-pushing is about consistently representing minority views in science as majority views. If I look at your edit history POV-pushing is what you do all the time. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well congratulations PJ Geest! You managed to find two edits where I did not attribute the material to sources. Sorry, but two edits does not constitute a pattern of failing to attribute sources. So this is why you have this relentless vendetta against me and have decided to keep blowing up my talk page with insulting, accusatory posts over and over again?
- I am talking about edits like this: [1] & this: [2]. I contributed more about the scientific consensus on degrowth, so this is not POV-pushing. You have no clue about what WP:NPOV is about, or you know the rules but you choose to ignore the rules and interpret it in your own way. Everything deviating from your own opinion is POV for you. This is not what WP:NPOV is about. POV-pushing is about consistently representing minority views in science as majority views. If I look at your edit history POV-pushing is what you do all the time. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- The first was a mistake in my part, the second was, given recent developments in the US, the equivalent of calling a spade a spade IMO so felt it was unnecessary. Sorry, my bad. Yes, occasionally I do fail to attribute sources, but what I posted last time has yet to be refuted because it can’t be: the majority of *new* material I add to Wikipedia is attributed to source material. Not only that but I often add relevant quotes to the citation for further verification. In fact I would argue I do both things in excess! I almost never present controversial material in Wikipedias voice, and if I do it’s usually based on citing multiple, extraordinary sources. From now on I will ensure that proper attribution is included to such material regardless of how many extraordinary sources I include.
- And regarding your other accusations, I certainly do not rewrite articles or sections to present a minority view as a majority one. I often add material on topics I am interested in and almost always based on scholarship I read, which I did a lot of until recently, as I’ve been very busy IRL. This coincides with my sharp decline in editing frequently over the last year or two.
- But honestly I don’t need to explain myself to someone like you. I’ve been an editor here for almost 20 years with only one disciplinary action taken against me when I first joined back in early 2007, which was reduced because I was mostly in the right. So kindly stop harassing me on my talk page with endless aspersions please as I really do lot wish to converse with you anymore. In my nearly 20 years I have a hard time remembering the last time I had such an unpleasant and insulting exchange with another editor. Frankly I’m probably going to archive this “conversation” soon as there is nothing constructive to be gained from this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- If I already notice two such instances within just the last 50 of your edits, that suggests there may be a recurring pattern. It is good that you indicate you will work on attributing your citations. However, it was not only this, this edit [3] also represented a very misleading summary of the source (a person pro globalisation with corrections is portrayed as anti-globalisation). Addressing another editor for not following basic policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, or WP:UNDUE constitutes normal content-related criticism and does not amount to WP:HARASS. Systematically archiving discussions shortly after critical remarks may give the impression of attempting to prevent others from noticing issues with your edits. With regard to the scholarship you cite, I would recommend reading more broadly rather than focusing primarily on minority positions from one side of the debate, and then only adding those (even if attributed). Doing so risks giving undue weight and may result in a biased articles. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- But honestly I don’t need to explain myself to someone like you. I’ve been an editor here for almost 20 years with only one disciplinary action taken against me when I first joined back in early 2007, which was reduced because I was mostly in the right. So kindly stop harassing me on my talk page with endless aspersions please as I really do lot wish to converse with you anymore. In my nearly 20 years I have a hard time remembering the last time I had such an unpleasant and insulting exchange with another editor. Frankly I’m probably going to archive this “conversation” soon as there is nothing constructive to be gained from this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)