R3N13R

Polices

Please read wp:or, wp:rs and wp:npov. Your recent edit makes a claim someone said something they did not (see wp:blp), in fact the source about then says it (the subject did not).Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see wp:talk, new topics or posts are placed beneath existing ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you for the help - which line are you referring to? You reverted the entire contribution R3N13R (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

More or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit, for a start. Also wp:lede should be read, the lede is only for a summery of the important points of the article, it is not a newspaper like leader. Also in places your wording seems to say things your sources do not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Quite a claim you make there sir. To say the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Bishop of Truro are dubious sources - what do you base your claim on?

They are not the only source you used. Nor is a source an RS for its own independence. As I said on the talk page, there are too many issues for a simplistic analysis. What may apply to one part may not apply to another.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please slow down sir. You made a claim. I care to remind you. Your claim was and I quote "more or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit". Now please substantiate your claim of the dubious nature of the first 2 subjects the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro and also the report . Once you have done that to my satisfaction Slatersteven we can move on to your further claims.

Your lede addition contained 127 words, your other paragraph contained 138 words, thus the material in body (not sourced to the UK government), in the body, made up more of your edit then the material you added to the lede. I also should point out you do not any any time source to the Bishop of Truro. Also the report does not say 128, it says 125 (nor does the report say this is the case, only that Pew have said so).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you that is much more helpful. I will correct the 128 to 125. I am not sure I understand - "you do not at any time source the Bishop of Truro". Please explain.

What I said, you do not source to the bishop, you use a third party host that claims to be the report. It maybe an accurate transcription, but you cannot claim it is the bishop. Oddly the article you use does link to the actual report, and not a dodgy advocacy group. Nor does correcting the error alter any of my objections. You might need to read wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven So you retract your claim about the dubious nature of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro ?

I never said they were, I said some of the sources you were using in all your edit were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ok so you retracted on the dubious nature of the [Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]] and the Bishop of Truro. Progress of a kind. Now, what is your claim as to the authenticity of the Bishop's report exactly? Are you claiming it it not the Bishop's report? Or are you claiming it has been altered in some way. Please elaborate.

How can I retract what I never said (but I will now say it, the SOS said 128, our article now says 125, both cannot be right, so which one is?). Again I do not question the veracity of the bishops report, I am saying use a better source for it, such as the original report (not a third party hosting of it). I do not know if it has been altered, we do not use questionable sources, even when they are right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you for now also retracting your claims on the authenticity of the Bishop's report. Again progress of a kind, sir. Now let us address your latest claim. Are you claiming that the Bishop's report is only a valid source if the document is hosted on a server or domain of your personal preference?

No I am saying we do not use questionable sources, no matter how valid their claim is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven What is the definition of a questionable source? And who decides this? R3N13R (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well one clue is when three separate users undo your addition for using dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven According to is defined as: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work

Do you agree?

Yes, but youtube is not an RS, even if it is a video of an RS. The reason is because we do not know if it is unaltered. Also " authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" is the Bishop of Truro an authority on persecution?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

edit war

Read edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven So far you have only made ONE objective observation. You have not substantiated any of your other claims whatsoever. I will ask you one more time, before escalating this. Your claim: "more or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit". Please substantiate your claim of the dubious nature of the first 2 subjects the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro and thirdly your claims as to the Authenticity of the Bishops report here: . R3N13R (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The bishop of truro is not the source, https://wecanstopthegenocide.com is. Also "more or less all of it" referred to your whole edit, not just your addition to the lede (and again, the lede is a summery of the article, not a newspaper style leader). You undid part of my revert (a third some) thus are close to violating wp:3RR. I am saying that you should use a better source then /wecanstopthegenocide.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have now beached 3RR, I suggest you self revert.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd, if an edit of yours in undone you need to make a case for it on the talk page of the article. If you cannot achieve consensus then you should drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

R3N13R (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please review my case: I am a new contributor and yet to familiarise myself, with all the nuances and protocols, of becoming a fine contributor. As reference to my appeal, please see my talk which I will be referring to as "the talk transcript": 1) From the outset, in both the talk transcript and the article revision history, it was claimed my contribution has a dubious source. The phrase dubious source is not a term that can be found in the guidelines Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. As can be observed from the talk transcript, I made a valiant attempt to extract a clear and precise explanation of what is meant by dubious source as the term dubious source do not appear nor is it defined in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guidelines. 2) I further suggest, for your fair consideration, that there was a failure to apply the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source correctly and fairly, towards my good faith contribution. As can be observed throughout the talk transcript, confusion around the meaning of 'piece or work', 'creator' or 'publisher', may have played a role, something I could not establish as fact, before being blocked. 3) Even if we grant that by the use of the term dubious source it was meant to be interpreted as biased publisher, a notion I do not concede at this time, this would still place the complete revert of my good faith contribution, in violation of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources which explicitly state: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. 4) As can be observed in both the talk transcript and the article revision history, Wikipedia neutrality is being undermined by the use of phrases such as "dubious source", "dodgy advocacy group", "third party hosting" and the questioning of the revered Bishop of Truro's expertise on persecution, something a student of the subject can easily verify. 5) I hereby propose, the talk transcript demonstrate a violation of the guidelines Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary which has, as its opening statement, the following: "Reverting is reversing a prior edit, in whole or in part. Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit." 6) In the talk transcript, a reference and claim is made about youtube, a source I certainly did not use. 7) Finally the revert was motivated as "more or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit". When asked for clarification or proof of this proposition. No satisfactory explanation was produced. I therefore respectfully performed an UNDO of the revert. 8) My good faith contribution was persistently and repeatedly reverted, without anyone demonstrating Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Good_reasons_to_revert. 9) If a case is to be made, that questions the expertise of the good Bishop of Truro, should this not be done, through an Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute rather than a complete revert? 10) As an observation, my experience as reflected by the tone of the transcript, together with the aggressive manner, in which my good faith contribution, was reverted without cause, several times, fall's way short of the ideal Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I do thank you for your time and consideration. R3N13R (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether the content of your edits was correct or not is largely irrelevant to your block. You are blocked because your behaviour - reverting the article to your preferred version without discussion - was disruptive. In order to be unblocked, you will need to indicate your understanding of this, and explain what you will do to avoid becoming involved in such edit wars in the future. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And you first act in coming of the block is to revert back to your preferred version.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

And you are back to edit warring, this really is not a good idea, PLEASE STOP.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

minor edit

Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Noted thank you R3N13R (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

spa

I feel wp:spa might also need a read.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Noted thank you R3N13R (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please read wp:npa, you are not being "persecuted" and such accusations are against policy. I also strongly advise you to read wp:not and wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)