User talk:Simonm223/Archive 7

Modern incarnation of ONR is not fascist.

Polish court ruled so. If you and others insist on implying that rule of law does not exist in Poland, Poland harbors fascist organizations and that there's no seperation of justicial system from executive/lawmaking one, such claims are nothing but slanderous and outright insulting (oh look at those savages in Poland, they have fascists and no rule of law! much unlike our progressive, western nations!). An article by Wirtualna Polska does not override a lawful legal ruling.

I'd really like you and others to stop, because informing ONR of such slanderous claims that they "are in fact a fascist organization" according to wikipedia and users like ABCMax is really on my mind. I will not contest ONR's historical fascist and/or ultranationalist past, but in modern times, they by law cannot be fascist. Anyone disputing this fact is trying to fight with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.211.169 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the only warning I'm going to give you about legal threats. Making claims of slander with regard to Wikipedia content is a good way to end up indefinitely blocked from contribution. Please cease this line of approach immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not making legal threats - I'm stating the truth. Lately I've seen reverts of me atttempting to contribute - fairly and with complete neutrality, resulting in quick effortless reverts, citing WP as an "academic source" while disregarding a legal ruling. You do not call someone a murderer unless they're convicted of murder. Why? Because it's outright slanderous if you do. Presumption of innocence applies to more than just physical individuals. I, myself, am making no legal threat, but I did have informing ONR of what's going on in mind, if these baseless claims don't stop.

By all means, change it to "claims of neofascism" if you like, but do not phrase it as if it was ruled by a court that they indeed are. Regard, a random guy. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, if you are going to push the claim of slander then I'll take it up with WP:AN/I Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I made no such claims, I am not in a position to do so to begin with. Feel free to inform whoever, though. Though what I've noticed - I have a sneaking suspicion you cannot put personal feelings and beliefs away for this page in particular. I'm talking about your user page - full of marxism, socialism, et cetera et cetera. I understand you want to call ONR a fascist-nazi organization that wants to restart Auschwitz and so on, but you fail to discuss the sources with me, like you said in my talk page. Let's talk about the sources shall we? Prosecutor drops investigation regarding promotion of fascism. Ditto. I have an open mind and I am willing to discuss sources. It's just no one presented sources for ONR's alleged fascism that go a little bit higher or equal to a Polish court. 93.179.211.169 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have taken your claims of slander to WP:AN/I, where I also mentioned your allusion to informing the National Radical Camp (which would violate several Wikipedia rules such as WP:CANVAS) - please feel free to address your statements regarding slander there. I will not be entertaining further discussion of it on my user talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes in Adel (name)

Hi, I'm the user who made the changes to the page for Adel, that you reverted. If you look at the article talk page, I suggested making those particular changes a week ago, and left it open for discussion from anyone who disagreed. No one responded for a week, so I went ahead and made the changes. Is there something else I should have done? The article as it stands is ridiculously long and includes false etymologies for the name. 50.255.144.29 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I disagree with the scope change to the article because I don't think it's etymologically appropriate to separate out the European version of the name from other versions. Please provide sources that state the names are etymologically distinct to origin and then, after demonstrating this is the case, (and not before) fork the article rather than just deleting the Middle Eastern material. This isn't the encyclopedia of Northern European stuff, and the European expression of the name is not more inherently notable than the Middle Eastern one. I took a rather long mental health break from Wikipedia and have only just returned; my first notice of your participation was your edit, I didn't see the talk page comment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Arabic name Adil does already have its own page (which notes that it is unrelated to the European name Adel). I'll be providing sources on the talk page for Adel, so if you disagree further let's talk there.50.255.144.29 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reguyla/Kumioko

FYI, the Reguyla/Kumioko user mentioned in the Fram thread is an office-banned account from years ago, not something related to Fram. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Christian persecution

Hello.

I would greatly appreciate if we could reach some form of compromise solution in this regard. It is an extremely serious issue. We cannot completely remove valid information about persecution that causes extreme suffering to a few hundred million people, regardless whether or not we dislike their faith. Thanks in advance for any help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Christians#Removal_of_important_new_sources David A (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed your statement at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I would appreciate if we can continue to talk there. However, I am extremely busy with other work, so my correspondence will regrettably likely be sporadic. David A (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help on that brain-dead buzzword of the month "Call-out culture". I felt like I was going mad, the article was so obviously complete rubbish, but removing the guff was a full blown battle. PS Bell Hooks is one of my all time faves, I loved her interview with Ice Cube, great stuff. Bacondrum (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you know

About this recent dispute at Guanyin‎? If you know the language, your input there is probably valuable. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of the dispute. I do speak Mandarin, though I am not the most literate in Chinese, and I don't speak a word of any of the other languages in discussion. Is the dispute whether Pusa is a component of Guanyin's name or an honorific? Because the answer from my perspective is, "it's complicated." Pusa is structurally an honorific; but it's one which, when used contextually, is indistinguishable for a name of Guanyin. It is effectively a way of reflecting the Buddhist connotation of this expression of the Goddess of Mercy, who was rolled into Buddhism from Chinese folk religion a very long time ago. But like, when my mother in law gave me a Guanyin pendant she referred to it as Pusa, not Guanyin. So yeah, it's messy. Simonm223 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't completely understand it, but that's the impression I had too. It may be worth checking if anything in WP:MOS applies; if not, if adding something about it would make sense (but if there's no clear rationale to chose one or the other, it may be pointless)... For instance we have things like MOS:ISMCAPS, WP:SAWW, MOS:CREDENTIAL, MOS:HONORIFIC... —PaleoNeonate – 11:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223, the question at hand deals with an info box's translation of the English equivalent. It should reflect common usage in encyclopedic articles in those languages. It is not an attempt to change the usage of "Guanyin" in either the title or the main text of the Guanyin article. So I think the "problem" may be over magnified. Also if you examine the info box for the sister wikipedia article "Avalokitesvara" you will see no one opposes the presence of pusa or bodhisattva in the info box translations. Hanbud (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate infoboxes with a passion. They're always a pain in the backside. Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me of endless debates on if school infobox should support the religion parameter —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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! Sookie7 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're editing against the source; there's no dispute here, only WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really do not know how a simple addition of a hyper led to all of those deletions to the Statue of Liberty page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayngrove (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

what Happened

Hello Simonm223 I hope you are having a great Day or night wherever you are, I did come across one of the pages and tried to edit it But got into a Dispute with it so I took it to talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

I agreed on a compromise to the wording that's Why I put it like that to avoid further conflict.

for one of Sources I found it may have been coped from another website on website I found, In 1995, the russian state commisioner confirmed that 200,000 Russian Orthodox Priest, monks, and nuns were killed. In 1997 the remains of a Catholic Bishop and 30 priests were found at Sandormoch, 150 miles north of St. Petersburg. According to Russian schoolbooks, 20 million Soviet and East European citizens died in Communist Labour camps, while 15 million more were killed in mass executions. This number includes christians, jews, and various other denominations. https://tsam12.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/the-persecution-of-christians-in-warsaw-pact-countries-2/

its the same way on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc&diff=904834799&oldid=904833479

Simonm223 I hope all this can help you With everything The way you remote it was good and the way you explained was also,

For the other 2 pages that still use that Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc

I don't see why it would e a problem if you redid it the way you did on the other page, Since it a Fringe Source. Since saying (According to James M. Nelson a psychology professor at East Carolina University, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime may have been around 12 million)is putting weight on a reliable source and not a Fringe like you saidJack90s15 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What I can suggest, and I really don't want to get drawn into a fight on Wikipedia over the Soviet Union if I can avoid it, is that tsam12.wordpress.com is almost certainly a blog and as such not a reliable source. Please review WP:RS to help build an understanding of identifying reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I should note that I have somewhat divergent views on reliability from the Wikipedia mainstream with particular regard to the use of newsmedia sources, so rather than providing you guidance here on specifics, I think it'd be good for you to learn the policies before getting involved into too many debates on the intricacies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] OK and I don't either that is why I compromised with the other editor about the wording with the Sources. And you Explained how the other one was a Fringe that is why I said (I don't see why it would be problem if you redid it the way you did on the other page, Since it a Fringe Source.) it seems really NPOV what you put on the other page,

(according to James M. Nelson a psychology professor at East Carolina University, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime may have been around 12 million)

Since that would seem like it would stop the disputes that happen from time to time on the page since it is putting weight on a source that is not Fringe Jack90s15 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union/Archive_2#20_Million_Christians_under_atheist_rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=874924066&oldid=874892805

That is why I Compromised https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss to Come to an agreement with it and to stop things like that.

I am still new to this but I am slowly learningJack90s15 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Learning is good; Wikipedia is a sometimes frustrating platform. Like I said, in disputes like this one, it may not be a matter of comprimise. Wikipedia is built upon the statements of reliable sources. WP:RS and companion policies such as WP:FRINGE lay out how to identify reliable sources. If you dislike a source you may want to review it and consider Wikipedia's standards of reliability; they will likely be different from your own. However through developing the ability to critically assess a source according to the standards for reliability set by Wikipedia you can learn to navigate these sorts of disputes clearly.

Now I have to demure from involving myself in this particular discussion. Frankly, my primary area of interest currently is 21st century fringe politics in the west. And with all the white supremacists and nazis running around North America and Europe right now, that's become a particularly fraught area of discussion. The last thing I want is to involve myself too much in another conflict-heavy slog here, such as discussions regarding religion in socialist countries. So please excuse my reticence to assist you with this matter further. But I do hope this guidance helps you develop as a Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 at least Some consensus was reached with the wording so something was accomplished and again thanks for the previous info

You're the goat! :P

You're doing Satan's work!

CLML427 (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Antifa (United States)

Hey there! Was there a misunderstanding over at the antifa article? You reverted my edits reverting controversial lede changes saying that my edits are controversial...? I'm assuming you meant to revert the changes by Victor Salvini and SapientiaBrittaniae but mistakenly reverted my edits, which were reverting theirs? QuestFour (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow two trout for me in two days. Yeah. Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism talk page

@Beyond My Ken: I find it really worrying and honestly disgraceful and dishonest that you (and also other users in the last weeks like User:Objective3000 here and here) somehow justify deleting entries in the talk page of Fascism, even when they are not vandalism. Specifically about the last big archiving done by Beyond My Ken (1, 2, 3, 4), I find this completely unnecessary and probably violating the talk page guidelines. Also, the WP:DEADHORSE essay that Simonm223 cites in his/her comment is not resolved by deleting the discussion thread in the page! --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The conversation is an extended case of WP:IDHT where disgruntled editors who for whatever reason don't like the idea that fascism is a right-wing ideology dispute what has been well established by academic reliable sources. It's tedious and tendentious. If you have new reliable sources to discuss, please feel free to open a new thread of discussion. But those endless don't like it posts are past the sell-by date and the archiving of it was righteous. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, please note that archiving is not deleting as you stated above. General Ization ^Talk 18:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Archiving in this case means removing them from the view of the users, which by the way were taking part in these discussions in the last weeks. You can't archive a discussion just because some people feel that it's tedious. The points of discussion include the question about the place where to put the adjective "right-wing": this is not at all tendentious. It's a legitimate discussion that you are basically censoring. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to remove this WP:DEADHORSE from my user talk page.Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandalism

You are a member of a far-left, violent, antisemitic, terrorist group. You are not a credible admin. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodrya (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Again, please remember to assume good faith. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Post-World War II anti-fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You need to bring up any issues on the talk page; you cannot blank content without a valid reason. Tataral (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Antifaschistische Aktion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pudeo (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

YouTube videos from official accounts are OK

Hi! I saw this revert. YouTube videos on official accounts are okay for the purposes of external links (Wikipedia:Video links explains that official account-uploaded videos are OK), and frankly it's time Wikipedia included more of those in supplementary links. In an interview for The Promise (2016 film) the director said that people learn more from film than from printed material. Wikipedia articles should, within reason, link to official account-hosted videos on the subject. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Antifa (United States), you may be blocked from editing. Tataral (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You know it's not considered an appropriate response to play "up the template ante" Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to Antifa (United States) where you reverted uncontroversial copy editing are clearly disruptive, and it's not the first time you make edits of this nature, cf. your previous revert-warring to reintroduce an outdated source instead of a new one. --Tataral (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You are inserting a POV that antifascist organizations are a paramilitary! That's not uncontroversial. And with your rapid rate of edits, I bulk reverted them. If you want to determine if an edit is uncontroversial, take it to talk first. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Geez, the description of the original AFA as paramilitary is utterly uncontroversial in scholarship of the era. They all had paramilitary orgs in the Weimar Republic, the social democrats/centrists, the Nazis, the communists and everyone else. I didn't even think that anyone would object to this description there, but it's not even a big deal for me. And I have not described "antifascist organizations" as paramilitary. --Tataral (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a clear POV push. Familiarize yourself with WP:WEASEL - along with WP:BLUDGEON - which will describe a situation where another editor has to ask you on multiple pages to wait and see what other uninvolved editors think. I'll admit I have no patience for people who try to make pages about antifascism into WP:ATTACK pages. But I will, once again, reiterate what I have consistently said to you in the spirit of WP:AGF - if you want to make major revisions to controversial pages, bring your proposed revisions to article talk first and discuss them rather than inserting them to the page without building consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the only POV here is the one held by you. I've not made any "major revisions" at all to Antifa (United States), but uncontroversial copy editing, that you reverted in the same way that you edit-warred over an outdated source without even reading the content or checking the article history. You need to bring your objections to my copy editing of Antifa (United States) to talk; what are your objections specifically? --Tataral (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also read WP:ONUS - you want to insert a claim that antifascist organizations started only after WWII and that they were founded as communist paramilitaries into this article, you need to build consensus for it first. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the dif in question had a highly misleading edit summary [1]. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make false claims about what I did or didn't. I haven't introduced this material in the article at all, I've made copy edits to an existing sentence that someone else introduced and that has been there a long time. And considering that you haven't offered any sources yourself, you shouldn't talk about WP:ONUS to an editor who edits in a scholarly manner and based on reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even read it, did you? When you introduce disputed content (such as the edit I linked) into an article, the onus is on you, as the person who prefers inclusion to seek consensus prior to inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't introduced any disputed content, I've made uncontroversial copy edits to a poorly worded sentence and included relevant internal links. If you objected to the word "paramilitary" as a description of the 1932–33 organisation that was already mentioned there, you could just have removed that. I don't insist on including that description there, it's a minor issue. --Tataral (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not an uncontroversial copy-edit. [2] Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And could you please click show preview before posting here? I've had (edit conflict) like four times now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial copy edit that mainly served to include a relevant internal link, correct the spelling, and rephrase a badly worded sentence in a better way. If you objected to paramilitary you could just have removed it. --Tataral (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Some more edits that were not uncontroversial copy edits [3] [4] And hey, while we're at it, you set up a POV fork of Antifaschistische Aktion here [5]. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And of course we can't forget this "uncontroversial copy edit" [6] Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm done here. You know very well that this edit has nothing to do with what we're discussing here, it's an old edit that is discussed on talk, and that has not been reinstated. --Tataral (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The neutrality of these edits has been disputed. The WP:DUE of the last one was not supported by anybody at article talk. This is what "disputed" means in WP:ONUS. You don't get to decide these are uncontroversial changes. That's what consensus is for. So how about you cool down your break-neck edit speed and propose your edits at the appropriate talk pages, see what other editors think. I don't want you to agree with me, I want you to build consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

After seeing the edits to Antifa (United States) I found this discussion and looked at a few of the diffs. Without getting into the rights or wrongs of the contents of Tataral's edits, there is clearly a problem with edit summaries not matching the content changes. I left her a warning about inappropriate edit summaries. The warning was removed immediately (which is perfectly allowed) thus demonstrating that it has been seen. If it is heeded, and the edit summaries improve, then that is fair enough. If not, then I fear that further action may be required. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions related to WP:ARBAP2

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ST47 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My t-ban?

You wrote "It became prettyt clear during the previous discussion at AN/I that Dicklyon had violated the terms of their extant t-ban, saw nothing untoward about their actions and would do so again." I think you're fundamentally correct that I saw nothing untoward about my actions and would do it again. I didn't see any evidence of actions that were disruptive, or any significant claim of disruptive behavior even, and the "t-ban", if it exists, is a bit ridiculous, which is why I'm trying to get it lifted. Can you be more clear as to whether you think I did anything that any other good editor wouldn't do, and maybe point to an example, if you can find one, involving mass moves? It feels like you're just repeating hearsay from that discussion, where nobody presented any evidence of problematic editing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In other words, can you clarify what kinds of actions you would want me to not do again (with specific example or two or what I did)? That would be the kind of feedback I could use. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, you cannot clarify the basis of your claims. Thank you for that admission. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Go away. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

Personally I don't believe my edit is disruptive or controversial, yet only a minor rectification one. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China to Mainland China and by restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation. Neither of these things are appropriate in this context. Furthermore, when challenged on an edit, you are supposed to go to article talk rather than edit warring it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I will go over your arguments:

1. You claimed my edit "had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China". Frankly I too suggest you reading WP:NC-CN before making any assertions on any China-related articles. Back to the article itself, the context is "the rest of the PRC", not "PRC". I don't reckon you can't see the difference here.
2. Regarding my "restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation", I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my intention. That HK should go under the name "Hong Kong, China" is explicitly stipulated in Article 151 of the Basic Law. Therefore, I don't consider my edits to be wrong under any circumstance.
3. Since my edit is only challenged by you, I straightforwardly go to your talk page. Hopefully it's not wrong. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Shall we go to the article's talk page per se if appropriate? --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should never have been here to begin with. Nor should you expect immediate responses. Wikipedia requires patience sometimes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So I have done the move just now. I'm expecting you to participate in the discussion there.--45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments about some of your comments

Simonm223, I wanted to post this here rather than on any talk page. Having worked both on the same side and other side of issues in the past I've found you to be very reasonable to work with. That's the part where I butter you up before saying the negative thing. I think comments such as, "We're already giving this right-wing talking point..." [[7]] and [[8]] are problematic. I don't mean uncivil but instead they suggest that we should ignore sources or self censor because we don't like something rather than because the principle of the matter is wrong. I'm certain in the past I've seen (and least from my POV) where you accepted some thing (material in or out, I no longer recall) based on the logical principle of the argument. I wish I could recall when, I'm sure it was gun related, because at that moment it became clear to me that even if you didn't like something you would accept it if the principle was sound. I think in these two examples you are suggesting that we should censor based on some sort of fear that readers might get contaminated with an ideology with which you disagree. This probably isn't how you see it and like I said, I've seen you act on principle enough to always give you the benefit of the doubt. Just thought I would share my thoughts and do it here rather than on any article talk page. Springee (talk)

Honestly, this issue is the most extreme case of WP:BLUDGEON I've ever seen and I'm getting frustrated. We've already had a POV fork article, an AfD, an appeal of the AfD, a subsequent request for undeletion and now people demanding that the shape of her genitals absolutely must be in the article. Frankly I'm about at the point of going to Arbcom over this. My frustration is that it has been decided at length that this information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The people who demand its inclusion are just hoping to outlast any opposition. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with your positions but I do get your frustration. I've been there (and might be there now ;) ). Anyway, keep up the clean fight. Springee (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, small bone that I now want to pick. I noticed that you restored this external link to a personal blog [[9]]. I'm not sure it's logically consistent to say we can't cite TTAG for a non-controversial technical fact yet we should link to a blog that is an aggregation point for stuff critical of the article topic. If the criticism are due they would be in the article. Springee (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a see-also external link; it's not being used as a source for anything. But if it bugs you, please feel free to remove on the grounds it's a blog and I won't edit war over it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk page discussion. I don't want to revert you, even if we disagree I think a discussion with you will be productive. Anyway, I've probably pestered you enough. Take care. Springee (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine. I've removed it. Also removed the random Youtube video. That is inappropriate for precisely the same reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2019OutlaweD

Dear Simonm223,

2019OutlaweD has asked me to declare that my contribution on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=912776208 was faulty and incorrect. Although I do not agree with him, I have made a few mistakes. I am writing you this message to stop a long lasting discussion via email.

- The victim of his assaults made only a few small changes to 'his' article. He didn't revert him. - He didn't say all moderators , but all users who confronted him with his behaviour were influenced by Chinese propaganda. - I have blocked him indefinetely on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I was wrong. There was no support for such a block and I was obliged to unblock him. At this moment, he has been blocked again until 19-9-2019 because of disruptive behaviour.

He will attempt to get unblocked on the English Wikipedia, but I would like to advise against it. His 'battlegroud' behaviour remains unchanged.

Sorry for bothering you again, Floortje Désirée (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's no problem. I'm quite happily not an admin so I won't be in a position to block or unblock him, but of course I support keeping that sort of battleground behaviour off Wikipedia. Thank you for all your help and for keeping me informed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

An AfD is not a PROD.

"An AfD is not a PROD. As such, no editor can unilaterally just remove the notice. Nor would that, in fact, prevent the AfD for proceeding. If you have evidence this individual crosses the WP:BLP1E bar and hits WP:GNG then you should present that evidence at the AfD." ^ Can you tell me how to present the evidence at the AfD? Thank you in advance. Water-n-Sky (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Click the link to the AfD discussion in the AfD tag at the top of the page and provide links to evidence demonstrating that the subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I've done a cursory review and I don't believe they do; as all their notoriety is connected to a single event (the meeting with the Demositso leaders) and we actually have a very specific policy on that WP:BLP1E which I strongly recommend you read prior to participating at the AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, Simon. This user seems to have a big grudge against you, see contribs. Do you know whose sock they might be? Bishonen | talk 18:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

Almost certainly HughD or a copycat trying to ape HughD. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

They started up that pattern of using socks to post messages insulting me in random low-traffic articles after I got their 72bikers sock shut down some time ago. They began a protracted campaign of harassment that eventually, thanks to some herculean effort on the part of Wikipedia admins simmered down into, well, this foolishness. It's basically whack-a-mole at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bishonen: Yeah, that's HughD. Sometimes this screed is directed at Legacypac instead, but it's always the same "I'm a troll, hurr hurr" waste of time. WP:RBI is prescribed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, good. I already indeffed the sock, and it hardly seems worth adding tags and stuff — WP:RBI, as you say, Ivanvector. Hopefully I'll remember the pattern from now on. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

Yeah, if you see that nonsense there's no need to even tell me. I know HughD doesn't like me and doesn't let go of grudges, but I'm happy to forget about them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

NBC article on Epoch Times

You might find this article very interesting [10]. It goes into detailed coverage of ET from former employees, and its relationship with Trump. I've added some stuff into the article already.--PatCheng (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It honestly doesn't surprise me. Epoch Times has been a right-wing propaganda rag for years. I mean it's basically the Washington Times for the Chinese community. That it would go all-in on pro-Trump agitation, especially conspiracizing about the "deep state" is like... FryShocked.gif levels of of-course. It certainly speaks toward my long held opinion that the Epoch Times cannot be treated as a reliable source within Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Listen, no matter what you think of me, the facts are that the evidence IS in the media, with video's showing clearly that a mob of men dressed in white attacked unsuspecting protesters. :The user is placing Chinese propaganda in this article time and time again, while others rolled it back.

The user is claiming to have looked for evidence, but clearly did not.

It is an edit war that is forming, but for sure it is vandalism.

ANd it is absolutely not unbiassed.

All of this users edits are about adding Chinese propaganda to articles about the demonstrations.

Are you a mod, or can you get a mod involved?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You accused another editor of being a paid operative of a state. That is a serious accusation. See WP:PAID. As you have provided on evidence that they are, in fact, a paid operative of China, it's one that would fall under WP:NPA - which i already cautioned you about. Furthermore Wikipedia doesn't have mods. It's not a forum. But Wikipedia does have admins, and if you continue to take this combative approach to other editors, you may find out that they have little patience for this sort of disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I may have acted inappropriately in speaking my mind. I will apologise after typing this message.

But, no matter what you think of me, we dee an official.

On the Dutch wiki, we call it a mod. If it is called an admin, fine by me.

This user is saying to have checked a certain fact and that it is nowhere in the media, but, as my sources have shown, I picked 4 randomly, a 10 second search reveals a whole lot of sources showing the fact.

At the same time, the user is claiming the opposite is true, while live video footage shows it is a lie.

The user claims to have checked this, which is shown by my sources to be a lie (I can't assume good faith over that). That is vandalism.

On top of that, I see that the edits reveal an editwar; repeatedly adding things that others (not me) roll back, because it is proven to be untrue.

And last, but certainly not least, the things this user has added, are all proven to be Chinese propaganda. I can supply evidence of this.

And, in fact, the only things that this user has added are Chinese propaganda.

Please, tell me where to contact an official. It is needed.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that you stop with these long, rambling complaints about a user upon whom you've fixated. While it's not block circumvention for you to be editing enwiki while blocked on nlwiki, the fact of the matter is that you've a recent history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and having been blocked for this on nlwiki, you've been doing the same thing here, and it's becoming disruptive. Furthermore, your user page on nlwiki implies you're a former wikipedian who has come back, so I'd suggest it'd be wise to disclose your previous account on your user page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not why I was blocked. I asked a user that was trolling to stop trolling me. I called that user a troll when doing so. That insult was the reason for the block. While that person was ruining the whole feeling. But whatever. I'll start again and I'll show you that showing facts will not convince this user. If I am wrong and this user will change, I will be happy. If not, there is reason to be worried.

Another thing, you have been splitting up the article about the 2019 demonstrations. Where did the part go about China's media action? Last historical edit I saw it in is here. Will you point me to it?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You can add your own self-awareness template now

See {{Ds/aware}} - goes on the top of your talk page. I did have something I wanted to chat with you about - if you feel up to emailing me from my talk page, please do. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

community self-defense

Hello, we had briefly discussed the topic of community self-defense ... and you had mentioned possibly adding it to the AfC requests.
I just came across this, which is of some relevance: Grupos de Autodefensa Comunitaria
So I am guessing there are similar pages about groups like this, or regional methodology, etc., just not yet an overall page that discusses the topic more broadly. Anyhow, thought that link could be helpful. If I see anything else I will post it here for you to take a look at, if you'd like. Cheers. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's great. You might want to consider bringing it up at Wikiproject Socialism too. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright doubt

Could i get your permission formally in my email address madavaramsivaram@gmail.com On me using the page on Genghis Khan for research purposes because you are a senior editor. Could you please make it formal . I need proof about the permission on using the page. Plz make it quick Fury alecto (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think I would be in a permission to give you any sort of copyright related permissions to any specific page on Wikipedia. No matter how senior an editor I am, I have no such authority, nor would I want it. I would suggest you should forward questions about copyright related matters and open licenses to WP:HELPDESK which will be a more appropriate venue to answer any questions you might have. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTFORUM hatting

Hello.

I am not sure why you hid my talk page post on Wikipedia talk: No Nazis. I pointed out several problems with the essay that, if fixed, would make it more correct and compelling. I didn't directly make the changes I'd like because the page is directly called out as being an essay representing certain Wikipedians' POV, and I don't claim the right to speak for them.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have entitled the new section "Response". Nonetheless, I think what I said is not so utterly worthless to improving the associated mainspace page that it ought be hidden. Magic9mushroom (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it was useless. Simonm223 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

article for deletion discussion

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is on-going. I published the original version of the page. I thought you might be interested in commenting on it. Cheers. Ltyl (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, Allegations of foreign interference

Allegations = a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Therefore, an allegation made by RT or Sputnik need not be a ‘reliable source’; it merely needs to have been made. Unless the heading is changed to "Facts of foreign interference", I'm going to return those paragraphs you removed. Water-n-Sky (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As non WP:RSes, their allegations are WP:UNDUE any mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to find allegations of foreign interference that are WP:DUE mention I suggest looking in the Chinese press rather than Russian pot-stirrers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, are you saying that, because 3rd party views (like the Russian news media corps) are not important to tense political situations (like the HK event), they should not be mentioned in such articles? Am I understanding you correct like this or not? If not, then can you please explain it to me further, so I can learn and improve when editing other articles that might be politically sensitive in the future? Thanks in advance. Water-n-Sky 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that RT and Sputnik have a reputation, as outlets, of communicating disinformation. As such all they're useful for as sources is for what they, as bodies, say about a situation. And the opinion of two Russian tabloids is not significant enough to be due coverage in an article on Wikipedia except possibly one about the outlets in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have two options: 1) RT and Sputnik are the source of the "allegation" in which case they're undue because they are not a significant player in international politics. 2) RT and Sputnik are reporting allegations made elsewhere, in which case, they're unreliable because of a history of misleading reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you mean. Thank you!Water-n-Sky 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We may disagree but you are welcome to talk with me

Simonm223, I know we disagree on the Ngo article but you are welcome to raise concerns with me directly. In order to see replies to my own comments on Masem's page I saw your comments about me.[[11]] Please always feel free to discuss concerns with me. I don't think your summary accurately reflects my POV but that may be a failure on my part to correctly express my concerns. Your levelheaded thinking related to the various firearms articles earned my respect and I'm happy to discuss even if we don't agree. Springee (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) BTW, my intent wasn't to just "walk away" rather the discussion with other members was getting too heated so I decided it was best to step back for a bit. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Springee has escalated and is out for blood. Their vendetta against me because they blame me for Jweiss11's TBAN is way over the line.[12] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to consider taking a break and walking away from this conflict. Please don't try to canvas me for assistance. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, while I hold as a significant position that opposition to far-right misinformation, and clear labeling of far-right misinformation is necessary to protect Wikipedia's goals of neutrality, I hold first, and foremost, that Wikipedia be a neutral source as the underlying motive for my arguments at article talk and my edits in main space. I'm uncertain that your intention at this time is to create a neutral encyclopedia, even if our interests aligned on the Ngo article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. My goal is a neutral and accurate article, nothing more.6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we'll see. In the meantime, I hope you take the advice I've now provided in three separate locations, and walk away from the current conflict at Andy Ngo. Sometimes you need to learn to cut your losses. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted The Gulag Archipelago to what appeared to be the last stable version pre edit-warring. I do not believe that you have done anything untoward from my cursory review, however I wanted to let you know this could become a subject for discussion on WP:AN/EW if the pattern continues, and I wanted to encourage all parties to sort things out before it gets to that level, thanks for your understanding. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bernier

Ok, I will fix my edit on Bernier's talk page. However I am kind of busy dealing with the 2019 Canada federal election's talk page. An IP editor added a bunch of conversation and my concern is that they are based on partisanship? Feel free to add your opinion into the federal election talk page.Weelandlka (talk) 19:12:03 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just clearly explain your proposed edit. That is all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. My proposed edits were questions and reasoning why Citing left out from his proposed statement. After I am finished with 2019 Canada federal election's talk page. I will write how it should be framed. Weelandlka talk) 05:05:13 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I left a very clear request at article talk. No need to bother me here.Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

OK. But like, IP, look up, waaaaaaaaaay up at the top of this User Talk page. I'm quite aware of these arbcom sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

AP2 notices

Thank you for doing that, Shouldn't Springee get one as well, as they have been the prime mover in attempting to keep the information out of the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

They got one in Nov 2018 so no. I would get in trouble if I gave them another. Simonm223 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please self revert

Simonm223, I've started a talk discussion about your recent restoration on the article talk page. I should have had that ready before undoing you edit. I think your edit was improper because article talk page consensus doesn't support restoration and neither does the RSN discussion. Springee (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No. But I will be commenting at talk shortly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Local consensus is against the restoration 4:1 based on DUE, not RS. I say this with respect but I think this is a bad restor on your part as it ignores ONUS and NOCON. Springee (talk)

Unhelpful edit summary

I don’t have a problem with your revert, but please use more descriptive edit summaries than the nah from your most recent one.

Regarding the actual edit, I added that phrase in because the previous version described the brick-throwing but didn’t distinguish the brick-throwing as occurring after the initial contact. I removed it and then had decided to add it back with clearer distinction. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's WP:WEASEL attempting to suggest the victim who died was throwing bricks and it's not happening today. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

An edit summary would make your reason clear. But that’s not at all what it was, and the introduced phrase doesn’t suggest whatsoever that the victim threw any bricks. It was clarified that the two groups began throwing bricks at each other. Also compare it to the version two edits prior:

• Before: a violent clash had erupted between protesters and local residents who hurled bricks at each other. The confrontation between the two groups started when a group of local people was clearing bricks from the street whereupon the protesters responded in an effort to prevent this.
• After: a violent clash had erupted between a group of protesters and a group of local residents. The confrontation between the two groups started when a group of local people was clearing bricks from the street whereupon the protesters responded in an effort to prevent this, after which the two groups began throwing bricks at each other.

Does that make the intent and effect clear? The two groups hurled bricks when the clash started according to the first version, and the second excerpt says nothing about the victim. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No. It's WP:WEASEL and I'm not likely to be persuaded here. Please feel free to go away. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You have a right to disagree about it being WEASEL but don’t accuse others of particular intent to suggest something when there is no such intent, and use descriptive edit summaries. Have a good day. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop editing my user page

Do not leave comments on my user page. That is what the user talk page is for. —Srid^🍁 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was your user talk page so apologies for posting to the wrong location. That said, my advice stands; don't canvas. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Please take the time to review WP:MEDRS in detail. You keep removing content citing this policy incorrectly. It ONLY applies to WP:BMI. Several editors (including me) have already pointed this out to you several times on the Havana Syndrome talk page. The history of that page is already messy enough without additional noise. Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You've been lobstered!

Regarding this exchange, and because we haven't found any trout yet this year, I hereby whack you with this lobster. Fill yer boots, bud! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinchy and delicious. (And hey, Mr. Seafood is just down the block.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you, it's MR (initials) Seafood, not Mister Seafood. I don't know what the MR is though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And here I've been calling it Mister Seafood like a chump for a year! Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the kind suggestions. Hope sweet pastry is your thing! :) Ltyl (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of tea to go with you baklava. Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death and Pinochet

Thank you for your commentary on Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, I think that really help clarifiying the issue. Now its more clear to me what kind of sources would be needed to make a clear case. Maybe these sources exist, but I won't bring up this topic in a time. I understand rules needs to be harsh on conspiracy theories or else it would be very exposed to promotion.

Regarding the Pinochet article I am unhappy with the first part of "Ideology and public image", it seem to me a collection of straw remarks with no good prose that unifies into a readable narrative. I have myself contributed to it, having added plenty of material in that section but not found any easy way to merge it all into a good text. I also think that if the section is going include selected opinions there should be some sympathetic ones also. Given that you seem interested in the topic but have a different approach on editing I will comment in the talk page before making further changes. Dentren | ^Talk 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

With a contentious historical figure like Pinochet, it's always best to discuss first and edit later. This is especially significant considering how he's lionized currently in certain sectors of the far-right. Giving an accurate neutral and scholarly historical account of the dictator is especially relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Revert.

My apologies for errasing over 140,000 bytes of info in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) article. A accident with the spacebar on my keyboard errased all the content of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

These things happen. No worries. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, of a sort

I don't want my block of 140george (talk · contribs) to appear as if I was preempting your warning. I was convinced they were using article space to work off some frustration and would not stop. Thanks for all your efforts Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. (TBH I'd forgotten you were an admin, and was mostly warning them that I'd be going to AN/I if they continued - your block seemed appropriate.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for taking the step of restoring the disputed material to Right-wing populism; it will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I think that I've become something of a personal lightning rod, so I'm inclined not to continue to get involved with the discussions about it. I will, however, monitor them to see if they're any more productive than past discussions have been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not long. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this attempt to have Wikipedia point out the very real ties between the resurgence of fascism and the rise of right populism is going to have to wait until more of the pro-far-right populist crowd pulls blocks probably. For myself, I'm getting fatigued dealing with this nonsense daily and am trying to step back from Wikipedia a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

DS warnings

Simonm223, while I understand that the Prager discussion boarders on climate change your warnings posted at my talk page do seem a bit like intimidation. I've hardly touched on the subject. Regardless, your RSN suggestion was good and I think things should go there. Springee (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. My edit was about climate change. I'm arguing PragerU is a fringe source specifically within the context of it being a climate change denialist outlet. The last time you were notified about Climate Change sanctions was in 2016 by HughD. This was purely administrative and there was no intent to intimidate. In fact, if this discussion goes vexatious, I'd have been remiss not to have warned you as you don't have the ds/aware template on your talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv

The Human Rights Tribunal was pretty harsh in its decision against her, including a $6,000 fine. They said she weaponized the human rights process as a means of extortion. It's now an important precedent in Canada [13]. I think this warrants more than a couple of sentences in wikipedia. You've been fairly vocal about keeping this out of the project. What are your thoughts now? Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think we should entertain TERFs using Wikipedia as a platform to weaponize one person's over-reach with a human rights tribunal. Nor did I ask you to reach out to me on this matter. My position on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS remains the same. Please kindly don't post here again on this topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Slipup at arbcom enforcement page

My finger slipped and I clicked archive entirely by accident. I deserve all the trout but I was not intending to edit the page in any way, I certainly wasn't trying to archive an open Arbcom Enforcement case. Oooops. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I left a comment about you edit

I don't know how to mention users so they get notified automatically, so I'm leaving a comment in your talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Call-out_culture#Obama's_view - Sridc (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I added an intro in my userpage just so you don't have to need to speculate where might come from. I understand that I'm new to editing Wikipedia with its rules, and therefore will be continuing to learn it, but at the same time it feels like I have to fight hard to get even *reasonable* changes included (the Haidt one being a great example). - Sridc (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Article review request

I've completely revamped the article Police misconduct allegations during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Can you please take a look at it and remove the NPOV tag if you think it's ok. Thanks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You are mentioned

FYI. I mentioned and quoted you here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You have a fan club

Found this. Reported it to WP:UAA [14]. Should be blocked soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity

I noticed that you were inactive since January, so I hope that all is well. —PaleoNeonate – 13:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Just kind of sick of Wikipedia's bullshit at the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if it'll stick but I felt like jumping back in mostly to do some work on continental philosophy stuff. (And to bang my drum about stricter use of news sources as WP:RS) Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Anti-communist propaganda

Hello, Simonm223. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anti-communist propaganda".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Chinese lists of cults

An article that been involved with (Chinese lists of cults) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of Chinese new religious movements). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

I am unclear as to what you are opposed to in my proposed edit that you request a citation for. It is self-evident that before the American Revolution the British monarchy and aristocracy was the political system in power. That didn't change until after the Revolution. Therefore, after the revolution liberalism flourished because monarchy and aristocracy were no longer extant. Shoreranger (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it changes the context of a cited source in a way that strays into WP:SYNTH - I thought I made that clear at article talk.Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy New Year!

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Simon!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Collective responsibility in Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hi Simonm223, if it wasn't for your contributions, I'd consider speedy deletion due to all significant edits having been topic ban / restriction violations... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is far more on that specific page than I feel up to the task of piecing out but getting some discussion at the talk page would probably be a good start. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I wonder how the situation would look like if you replaced your contributions by an addition of {{db-g5}}. I think I'd perform that. I was mostly here to throw that idea into the room. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, Tamzin had less scruples. It's already done. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Civility

Please do not refer to other users as "parochial Americans." This goes against the civility policy, and I am not going to explain this a second time. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I was not referring to any specific American as parochial but I find American culture, in general, to be deeply parochial, IE: having a limited or narrow outlook or scope. I also think poorly of people who use the bludgeon of etiquette to avoid ever hearing anyone dislikes their positions or outlook. So do kindly take your complaint elsewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was too harsh, and I do apologize for any offense I might have caused, but I will state the discussion is not about the quality of U.S. culture -- it is about whether or not one person is more notable than another. Personally, I do not think that how "parochial" U.S. culture should factor into this at all. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pardon

I don't edit as a republican, fwiw. You'll notice (for example) that I've never nominated Monarchy of Canada for deletion & never will. Also note - I rarely edit Debate on the monarchy in Canada, Republicanism in Canada or Monarchism in Canada pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW - Were you responding to my post (at ANI) or Darryl Kerrigan's? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I was supporting that republicans should be perfectly able to edit articles about giant leeches royals. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your indent at WP:ANI, confused me ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on Abdullah Ocalan.

Hello, I understand you have to maintain edits made on Wikipedia in the most neutral way possible but I believe I have conveyed the same, neutral narrative. I understand your objections to calling him the former leader of a terrorist organisation but “Kurdish” being listed under nationality is just wrong information.

Thanks. Syrianchessman (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Nationality has very little to do with the level of international recognition of a country exists. Kurdish people consider themselves to constitute a nation. Thanks and have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem with "alleged"

I just want to inquire into this edit on Tiffany Henyard https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiffany_Henyard&oldid=1217223942

Your wording change is fine, and I don't object to it. However I am puzzled by the assertion in your edit summary that the modifier "alleged" being placed before the term "assault" is insufficient and amounts to an outright assertion that an assault occurred. (edit summary: "we can't say the assault occurred; putting "alleged" in front doesn't change that"). How does the adjective/modifier "alleged" not properly describe that it is there is mere allegation of an assault and nothing further has been substantiated? I am puzzled and therefore feel I should seek enlightenment. SecretName101 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The way the sentence previously read was that the alleged assault occurred. This creates a logical inconsistency between the fact the assault was alleged and the argument that the assault occurred. That's why I restructured the sentence to state that assault was alleged and stemmed from a trip. It clarifies that the trip occurred; the assault is alleged. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so your issue is with the use of the word "occurred" without preceding modifier (such as "claimed to have" or "asserted to have"). I now see it [looking at state of the article as of the preceding revision SecretName101 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: this editor hasn't edited in 2 months and hasn't edited Uyghur genocide ever as far as I can tell. Why did you post this here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed their edits in the space until now, the restriction is not just for the specific page but for the wider issue which Simonm223 appears to be involved in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I was heavily involved with work on the Urumqi massacres and, in fact, got a barnstar for it. I don't edit in that space much because I honestly try and stay away from those places where my frustrations with Wikipedia's systemic pro-US bias is most likely to get me in trouble but you can certainly consider me aware of this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

unresonable

@Simonm223

why you are you removing my content and branding it as "misinterpretation of Fererro"? this is exactly based on ferrero's article. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I read the Ferrero paper and I think you are reaching to make a point that isn't the main thrust of Ferrero nor even well supported by the paper. I would suggest you read WP:SYNTH - the other reverts were because they were not up to Wikipedia standards, particularly with how you made assertions in-Wikipedia voice based on a small number of citations. That is not something we do. I would also, finally, suggest you review WP:BRD - you made very bold edits to the article. I reverted them. The best thing to do now would be to go to the article talk page at Zoroastrianism and discuss them.

I understand you're a relatively new editor so I'm actually trying to be rather kind here and not WP:BITE you. But I would strongly recommend both that you don't take reverts personally and that you are more careful about WP:NPOV with future edits. It's pretty evident from your edit history that you want to shift the Zoroastrianism article to make it seem like the religion is more unambiguously monotheistic; this is something that will require discussion and consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

the section that I've wrote is well supported by Ferrero's article. where is the problem? tell me and I will change it.

besides, the section which was based on an article by "Shernaz Cama" is a reliable source. since, she is an academic person, which comes from a Zoroastrian background and has the authority on her claims.

third, I'm just trying to represent some facts based on what I've found in different sources. you are misinterpreting my intentions. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Cama piece - merely attributed it to her and shortened it. And your problem is that you think Wikipedia should "represent facts" rather than present the academic discussion. Please take it to article talk. My user talk page is not the correct venue. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

I revised the section. you didn't read it though.

these actions are unacceptable. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this politely. Please go to article talk and build consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

@Simonm223 We waited for the editors to give their opinion. but only one editor has given his opinion so far. should we wait forever to add a simple text to that section or should we conclude the process and decide to add the material? thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Look if you insert it now it's up to you. But if another editor reverts it don't blame me. Simonm223 (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks. but write something in the talk page that we have reached a consensus. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

NoSimonm223 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian identity and the ADL

I agree that the issue of the Palestinian national identity is not relevant to the discussion about whether the ADL is a reliable source, but it was not introduced by me, but rather by @Nishidani who started talking about "Zionism as 'the movement for the denial of Palestinian self-determination'". I just responded to him. If you need to reprimand anyone regarding this, it's him. Vegan416 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not bring this to my user talk page. You aren't welcome here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is that VoA is reliable

You are mistaken in asserting that "VoA is NOT a reliable source and The Diplomat isn't much better. There are a few acceptable additions here but those two sources are contested." [15] when we have consensus that both are reliable and neither is contested. What you asserted is almost the exact opposite of the truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

VOA is a propaganda rag -it's to Wikipedia's discredit that it hasn't been deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Be that as it may consensus is consensus and we have to abide by it even if we disagree with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

And local consensus involves all parties. Of which I, with my position, am a part. You will note I am engaging at article talk and not edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A local consensus can not override a central consensus. Editing against consensus is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just take it to article talk. Calling a WP:BRD revert "disruptive" is pointless. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is no valid reason for a revert its disruptive. The edit summary also misrepresents consensus, which is disruptive on its own. I can't see a valid reason for the revert and we discuss behavioral issues on user talk pages not article talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We are finished this conversation here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes we can finish this discussion here, that is what I would prefer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)