MrKvlt

March 2019

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Black Sun (symbol), will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

so me changing part of an article that is untrue is somehow vandalism? If you knew anything about the Black Sun symbol you would know that it's not a neo-nazi symbol by origin. MrKvlt (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not your personal first hand research. The "origin" of the symbol is not relevant to this situation, as the cited sources clearly explain. Do not add original research to this or any other article. Discuss on the article's talk page, if absolutely necessary. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Reliable sources", (by your definition) most likely would include your own cherry-picked articles. And how is the origin of the symbol not relevant to this situation? Last I checked this was the only article on the Black Sun, where it somewhat explains it's origins. So again, please tell me how the origin isn't relevant to something on it's own article. MrKvlt (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The part you were changing was specifically about the Christchurch mosque shootings. If sources about this incident say "neo-Nazi", and they do, so will the article, because context matters. If you have sources: Discuss on the article's talk page, if absolutely necessary. Grayfell (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black Sun (symbol). Grayfell (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Most articles, and a lot more of them, describe it as an Occultic symbol. Just because this one incident happened doesn't mean the definition of the entire thing changes because a CNN article says so. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. MrKvlt (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with you, if you want to defame a group of people because a few biased news articles say something, go ahead. I'm done trying to stop your robot mentality. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=WikiNazi MrKvlt (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your attempt to whitewash that section of the article about a recent neo-Nazi murderer, by citing a new-age blog, is vandalism. The article explains the history of the symbol. If you think you have a reliable source which should be added, discuss it at the talk page, but you cannot ignore existing sources to add your own personal analysis. Grayfell (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How is it whitewashing? I'm trying to explain what the symbol really means, it's a Pagan Occultic symbol, not a neo-Nazi one. Like I said, just because a few news articles say something doesn't mean it's true. News articles that mostly consist of opinions in today's age AREN'T reliable sources. The same thing you said to me about me citing a "New-age" blog could easily be applied to the ones that are already in there as overly-opinionated news articles. What they say about the symbol in their articles is their opinion. MrKvlt (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have rephrased it to more closely match the source, so perhaps that's good enough.

Wikipedia has standards for sources. If you have a problem with what's already cited, you could explain that, but calling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion by Wikipedia's standards.

The symbol is, like it or not, both. The article already explains the symbol was very popular with Nazis and is even more popular with neo-Nazis. You don't get to rewrite that history by finding sources which don't mention that. How it is helping readers to say that the explicitly alt-right neo-Nazi shooter who loved memes and 4chan had an "occult" symbol on his rifle? Do any sources mention this? It seems pointless and distracting, but even if its true, we can't use a source about the symbol to imply something about the shooter. We have to go with what the sources say. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You know what, that'll work. Thank you. I appreciate that the article isn't total defamation now. Have a good day. MrKvlt (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)