User talk:Simonm223

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles the Arab–Israeli conflict climate change the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

I'm also WP:AWARE of WP:GS/UYGHUR but that doesn't work for the DS/aware template.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

I’m not sure they should be editing any China related articles. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't think they should - but I'm not inclined to take another person to AN/I for WP:CIR when I've already involved in the two oldest disputes that haven't yet been archived there. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t blame you. They are editing at a prodigious rate. Unusual for someone not trying to get 500. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look a lot like WP:RADAR - I'm a bit concerned about their tendency to page-hop and just ignore any comments suggesting they discuss edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are you asking me to do something? Doug Weller talk 13:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe a warning from an admin might carry more weight at this point - I don't want to give the appearance of stalking a user but these dozens of small edits across multiple pages are looking like a worrying pattern. If I thought they'd actually do it I'd suggest they stop for a moment and go to Wikiproject China to discuss the overall thrust of what they're doing. But I don't have much confidence they'll listen at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I would word it, sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springee just responded by telling giving me a contentious topic alert.

Yeah I just realized that telling you personally that, though we both found out about the problem article at the same time, might give fodder to other users to cry canvassing. I always try to operate firmly within Wikipedia rules so thought better of posting for that reason. For obvious reasons I trust you to act with regard to that article as you would have with the information you already had at your disposal and notwithstanding my concerns. :) Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not canvassing for two editors to talk openly on a talk page about the sort of egregious ugliness I just saw. It would not even be canvassing to post it at a noticeboard, depending on how it was done. Nor would it be canvassing for you to use the email link that is enabled on my page. I was going to tell you that this looks like they got tired of getting shut down on the main pages and made their own. But. This just became my top priority; I was about to write up the fact that we are using sources stealth funded by the Manning Foundation at Jordan Peterson, but I really need to look into who did this and what happened. Ugh ugh and ugh. 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Game Science. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have made several edits trying to remove a mainstream media source [1][2][3]. --Cold Season (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to review WP:DTR Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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!

Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

• Liviu Holender chose lieder by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Korngold and Schönberg—for a recital at the Oper Frankfurt.

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would suggest that Holender is fond of early modernist composers - and felt responding to Nazi censorship of art still was relevant as a curatorial statement today. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Well, 11 years ago infoboxes for classical composers where a hot topic. If you look at the talk pages of the 5 composers, do you think they still are? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consistency in the infoboxes across these five composers. Schreker and Zemlinsky have one template, Mahler doesn't have an infobox, then Korngold and Schoenberg have different layouts for theirs. The Korngold talk page refers to heated discussion about infoboxes in 2007. There's a recent discussion at Schoenberg about infoboxes that is resolved with a gesture in the direction of the W:MOS. There is a current, long-running and lively debate about infoboxes at the Mahler talk page that should probably have been put to an RfC some time ago. There's no conversation at the Zemlinsky page unless it's been archived but, considering nothing has been archived since 2007, I find that unlikely. Likewise with Schreker there's no indication of any discussion about infoboxes in the last 15 years. It would appear that the page of the most famous composer of the five remains watched by holdouts who disagree with putting infoboxes on composers but that these other four pages either didn't have activist watchers or consensus simply played out differently.

The truth is that while I see the shadow of an entrenched conflict, via Mahler, I don't think this is anywhere near the point where arbitration is called on. In the Mahler case there's still RfC, request for 3O and dispute resolution as possible steps to resolve the half-year long debate. I'm not certain if this is what you're looking for. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, in the Mahler discussion, that you and Tim riley appear to have history surrounding the question of infoboxes. I commend your restraint not to have cautioned him on civility in that moment as I might have (lol). However, based just on the Mahler talk page, I'd say that the best course of action would probably be an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, as it seems you're hoping to see whether candidates have some basic on-wiki research skills I did find this arbitration case [4] which I'm now reading. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've finished reading the file. I'm not sure how things got that bad over the topic of infoboxes a decade ago but I do hope that cooler heads can prevail in general today. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I will vote for you! Inquiring mind! - You may study further, the RfC for Mozart is in Archive 16 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(new posts to Mahler) I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. (no time for little boxes) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it defeats the purpose of oversight to post requests at high profile noticeboards: the edit notice you see while you are are posting says If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be revision-deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or if you need to discuss any privacy-related matters, please send the relevant diffs and information either using this form, or via e-mail to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to revision-delete the information in the meantime. Revision deletion and suppression may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel. Oversight usually deal with it ASAP. SerialNumber54129 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you can trout me for that one. I know that. I just did a stupid. I'm writing the email now. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—and sorry about my slightly robust edit summary—nothing personal! SerialNumber54129 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suppressed some revisions, and opened a discussion on the OS list. Don't worry about the email unless there's more info you need to send us that isn't in the page history or in your AN post. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But, as a note, I'd already sent the email by the time you replied to me here. Thank you for your prompt response. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I received the tickets in backwards order, but thanks, that's not on you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology at AE. Part of it, though was on me not explaining the entire situation the best, so I'd have been fine without one. I should have been better at pointing out their pattern of bludgeoning / selective interpretation of policy but didn't want to include too many old diffs (lol) so it ended up looking more like a dispute contained to a single article instead of long-term behaviour across the topic area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get it. I just like to own up to it when I get the wrong end of the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to caution you against leaving pointless messages on others' talk pages that misrepresent both that person's actions and motives.

I did not "go to an article just to chew out an editor regarding his comportment". I visited the page, noticed the comment, and offered my view of the person's suggested edits to guide other editors in the future. I noted this person's obvious bias and suggested that other editors ignore his suggestions for that reason. All of this was and is directly relevant to the content of the page in question.

If you are unable to offer an honest accounting of what happens in a Talk Page discussion, and instead simply offer your misinterpretations as fact, then just move along. Pernoctus (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

میشه مشکل را حل کرد و خیلی قشنگ تر از از این موضوع نتیجه گرفت و مشکلات را با بحث کردن حل کرد لطفا این را بیا حل کنیم 5.123.168.138 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but honestly I don't have the first clue who you are and so cannot say if we have any problem at all. You've only ever used this IP for one edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 21:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Crown of excellence
	You recent contributions in the Septimius Severus article are very notable to the Roman emperor of Libyan Origins, Please accept this token of gratitude for taking the time to handle the matter. Lobus (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simon. Just to say I'm sorry you didn't get into arbcom. I kind of knew you wouldn't, though - so many people simply automatically oppose a non-admin, no matter their qualifications. For my part I supported you, both because I've always thought a non-admin would bring a usefully different experience to the committee, and because I've seen you around the noticeboards doing a lot of good stuff.

Maybe you dodged a bullet, though; being on the committee really, really doesn't look like any fun from where I stand. Suddenly all your ordinary-user public appearances have to become cagey and cautious, lest you have to recuse from everything that interests you, and your chatty interchanges with friends have to be muted (if it hasn't become too dangerous to even *have* friends here). No fun. Anyway, I hope you're not too disappointed. Regards, Bishonen | tålk 01:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

What Bish said. Thank you for having looked more deeply into my question than any other candidate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words folks. Honestly I mostly signed up because it looked like there wouldn't be enough people and I figured it was a way I could give back to Wikipedia. As that turned out not to be the case, no harm no foul. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw "the content I removed here" & that you "could not find the edit where it was originally included".

Not sure if it really matters, but I found it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon. I was going to say this over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others but I changed my mind because it would be badly off-topic and I didn't want give anybody an excuse to start shouting at me or to detail the AfD process:

I sometimes worry about what it would have been like if Wikipedia had been around in the early 1930s. How would our current policies have coped with the Nazis? We would probably have had a load of German newspapers classed as RS based on their long pre-Nazi reputations and any attempt to revoke that status would be derailed by editors quietly, maybe even unconsciously, sympathetic to Nazi viewpoints. Google Scholar would be full of articles from German universities that purported to validate Nazi race theories as genuine science. What would our articles on Judaism, The Jewish Question or Jewish Bolshevism look like if our policies regarded those as legitimate scholarship? It's a scary thing to think about because Wikipedia is predicated on the idea that there is a solid bedrock of Reliable Sources but... what of there isn't, or even if there is, what if it is not a solid as we think?

Yeah, so, sorry for clogging up your Talk page with that. I wanted to say it somewhere and I wanted to reassure you that you are not the only person who sees this stuff for what it is. It's just hard to know how best to deal with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I'm just getting frustrated that we seem so vulnerable to this specific bigotry. I don't like bigots. Simonm223 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to see that you understand there's a chance that sources considered reliable might not be as reliable as people think. Have you considered that an instance of this could have led to an injustice which you later helped to perpetuate, even if you weren't involved in the original case? 181.174.112.86 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come back when you're logged in if you want to cast aspersions at me. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was not directed at you, but rather the user who started this thread. 201.246.186.241 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please take your VPN-enabled sniping campaign somewhere that isn't my user page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

As requested. But look, could be worse - could've been thinking of Patrick Warburton! ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help break the gridlock at Talk:Amdo since you showed up at ANI. I have made these changes [5] trying to combine both sides. Vacosea (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in your comment here that you didn't have access to the relevant sources. As a longstanding Wikipedia editor in good standing you probably qualify to use the Wikipedia library: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ - which makes it relatively easy to look up sources like that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow that would be handy. Getting abstract only papers is the bane of my life. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simonm223! The thread you created at the Teahouse, What's the deletion sorting keyword for LGBTQ+ articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss that edit revert or whatever it is called on the Vinland article ... first paragraph or two, where I believe you removed the reference to New York and other 'southern' areas. Thank you. .... and thanks for removing the bit about Einar Haugen. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm concerned that you are a very new Wikipedian who has a very strong POV about a very narrow set of articles and that your edits are, as a result, non-neutral. I would suggest you might understand some of the pushback you are getting if you read WP:DUE as a start. Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it absolutely must be in an article or that it should have a certain pronouncement. Your POV is pretty clearly that Vinland explicitly excludes Anse aux Meadows. This does not seem well supported by contemporary research. Frankly I don't really care much - as you may have seen from the thread I started, I'm far more interested in the epistemological element of the whole Vinland thing. What I also care about is article neutrality and I am concerned that your edits, which I reverted, are significantly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is very interesting... since I feel that you are [as you feel about me...] not neutral here.

You say above, -"Your POV is pretty clearly that Vinland explicitly excludes Anse aux Meadows. This does not seem well supported by contemporary research."

There is no getting around the high number of highly credible researchers who don't accept L'Anse aux Meadows or northern Newfoundland as Vinland. Even Birgitta Wallace wrote in her appendix to Gwyn Jone's 1986 "The Norse Atlantic Saga" that it was "...impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland." That is impossible to ignore. So many other researchers reject L'Anse aux Meadows as a site in Vinland. Erik Wahlgren for example. And Einar Haugen. Many others can be named. To be truly neutral we should agree that Vinland's location is still undetermined, and NOT judged universally to be Newfoundland. I suspect you have Magnusson and Palsson's "The Vinland Sagas." See what they had to say about where the majority of scholars believe Vinland was located. [Pages 8 and 42]. It is not in Newfoundland,... they reported most research placed Vinland in New England. Things have not changed since the 1960s, or with a 'better' understanding of L'Anse aux Meadows. New England is still out front in the running, even without concrete archeological proof. It's a truly fascinating subject, and I hope we could trade facts and opinions on friendly terms. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly my POV is materialism. The truth on the ground is that there is archaeological evidence of pre-Columbian Norse settlement in Anse aux Meadows, Baffin Island and pretty much nowhere south of those locations. Much else about the geography of Vinland depends far too much on the Vinland Sagas - which I would not read as histories in the contemporary sense of the word. I mean should we go looking for a culture of monopeds? If there were Norse settlers in New England prior to Columbus I look forward to the provision of archaeological evidence. Until then it's somewhat irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not sure of what you have been studying, but I have not lost faith in what has been said by past researchers, just because time is moving along. Tremendous amounts of time and effort is wasted chasing or 'resting' on false information. In 1954 German historian Paul Herrmann said about Vinland in "Conquest by Man"... [page 280], "It is not our task to go deeper into the matter and consider the conflict of assumptions, conjectures, and interpretations in detail. We must content ourselves with noting that Massachusetts corresponds most closely to the indications of Vinland's position given in the sagas." He also wrote on page 276, "...Massachusetts is the place most frequently named in the very extensive scientific discussion of this problem. None the less, it is still a moot point; hence there are always those who would transplant Leif Ericson's Vinland to Virginia, Florida, New England or Newfound land. Yet none of the objections to Massachusetts are very convincing." Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is reading the sagas as histories rather than as historically bound artifacts. Simonm223 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone sees the two Vinland Sagas as a mix of fact and fiction to varying degrees. Paul Herrmann's statement about Massachusetts still applies today... the objections are not convincing. On the other hand, objections to seeing L'Anse aux Meadows as a site in Vinland have been raised many times. Graeme Davis is a recent example. In his 2009 "Vikings in America" he writes... " page 77,

"...The site [L'Anse aux Meadows] raises very many questions. First of all this is not Leifsbudir, or anywhere precisely identified in the sagas. Leifsbudir consisted of booths and later no more than two houses, and at no time had more than two ships there. Leifsbudir had a palisade for defense, which L’Anse aux Meadows does not. The northern tip of Newfoundland does not resemble the saga description of a fertile Vinland, and its winters could not be described, as the sagas do, as being exceptionally mild. Nothing about L’Anse aux Meadows fits the description of Leifsbudir."

Rockawaypoint (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't care to have an extensive argument here because it's rather irrelevant. What matters is an appropriate application of Wikipedia policy - specifically WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:AGEMATTERS. If you can work collaboratively within the bounds of those policies then we won't have a problem. The extent that I have a "bias" here it's in an application of WP:AGEMATTERS to material written before the excavation of any Norse settlements in North America because it was, frankly, romantic speculation. As such I am going to prefer sources that are working with actual archaeological evidence within the context of WP:DUE. I believe that to be a WP:NPOV compliant position. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be truly "neutral" this article needs to be revised so that it will "...explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias..."

The excavation at L'Anse aux Meadows itself directly refocused the search for Vinland farther south, - once the butternut hulls and burl wood were found and studied. I know of many people who believe Vinland was in Nova Scotia or farther south, but you seem to want to leave that very legitimate "side" out of the article. Mats Larsson will pass the test as a 'reliable source' I'm sure. His 1992 paper in 'Scandinavian Studies' fully supports the view that Vinland was in Nova Scotia, NOT Newfoundland. Mats G. Larsson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Vinland sagas and Nova Scotia: A Reappraisal of an Old Theory, 1992

He wrote, "...In recent years, however, some scholars have argued against the conclusion that L'Anse aux Meadows represents the final solution to the Vinland question. Wahlgren is of the opinion that the details in the sagas make it necessary to search further to the south. He and other contemporary philologists suggest that vin in the Norse name, contrary to the position taken by Ingstad and some other scholars, must refer to grapes, not grass. Also Birgitta Linderoth Wallace, responsible for recent excavations in L'Anse aux Meadows, concludes that Vinland must have been located more to the south, probably in the Gulf of St. Lawrence."

===========================

Other credible researchers think Vinland was not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but maybe as far south as New York Harbor. Pall Bergthorsson, the Icelandic Meteorologist for example. The archeological work at L'anse aux Meadows has NOT done anything to shut down the many other interpretations of the two Vinland sagas.

===========================

From Wikipedia, - "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Rockawaypoint (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've asked you politely to wrap up arguing with me at my user talk page about this. Because you are a new editor I'm being quite gentle with you so I want you to understand that the norm here is that if a person, on their user talk page, says a conversation is over, that means it's over. If you have specific edits you want to discuss at article talk we can have that discussion there. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a newbie,... lots to learn. I do feel strongly that the article needs to be rewritten to be more neutral. Thanks for the polite approach... no doubt it's the best one. Rockawaypoint (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simon:

I noticed you implied that I changed the "Holocaust denial" part of Nick Fuentes' movement to anti-Zionism. I did not do that. I merely added that one of the movements Nick Fuentes has associated himself with is the anti-Zionist movement. NesserWiki (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I reverted also removed holocaust denial. Whether it was your intention to replace holocaust denial with anti-zionism that series of edits had that effect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But also my reverts hit both you and another editor who were making category changes. I think theirs is the edit that was more concerning from that perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:DTR. You're not improving your case that you aren't engaging in disruptive editing by templating me, especially after I explicitly told you I wouldn't reinsert the archive tags. I'd suggest you want to stop this antagonistic approach. Now. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time is coming, where we might need a page block, per WP:IDHT & WP:BLUDGEON behavior. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the best course of action here is probably to just do a fresh RfC rather than arguing over interpretation of a four-years-stale consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vinland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wabanaki. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a significant WP:POV push both by recategorizing state socialist states as communist and by claiming the Republic of China exists as a state today"

Just a question. Are you saying that Laos, which is officially a people's democratic state, does not practice democratic centralism or that most of Eastern Europe didn't do it before the 1970s? Because, officially, none of these were socialist states before the 1970s. They were people's democratic states? Or are you saying that the communists were wrong to claim they were people's democratic state when they were really socialist state?

... Or maybe, a people's democratic state and socialist state are both communist states? Maybe you should try to comprehend the terminology behind "socialist state" before saying its POV-pushing... especially when these states did not push the interpretation you do (and neither does scholars). TheUzbek (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my revert affected material about Laos. I was principally concerned with the China material. If I inadvertently changed something about Laos go ahead and put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and had another look and the only non-socialist state that was affected by my revert was Iran. I did not make any changes to material about Laos. Nor, for that matter, anywhere in Eastern Europe aside from the Soviet Union. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be onto something with Supporter33 and Contributor561. The overlaps in their editing history are beyond coincidental. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI. It's the most obvious socking I've ever seen in my life. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also added NeutralLens to the SPI case. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I updated the information about Radix Journal on Richard Spencer's page (I am kinda doubtful that it could still be considered a publication, as it ceased to have its own website in 2022 and has been operated as a Substack blog by Spencer and one other guy since then). I feel like the fact that it is no longer, like, a corporate entity means something. I guess I get not linking hate websites in concept, but websites are frequently linked in articles about hate groups. Is there a WP that discusses this? Theodore Christopher (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say look for an even marginally reliable secondary source that indicated the change. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radix as a website, as with altright.com and other 2016-era Spencer projects, went under without so much as a whimper. The only reason why its continued operation is mentioned in the Spencer page is because of a single sentence in a "where are they now" SPLC article. But saying that it continues as a "publication" and not a two-person Substack blog is inaccurate. Theodore Christopher (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Călin Georgescu. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just bring it back to article talk. I've got it watchlisted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my RfC comments have been unhelpfully obnoxious. I'm not used to staying involved in a single discussion for so long — as of now this is by far the most times I've edited any article, and I'm unhappy that it's a talk page. Sorry if I'm having a hard time being patient with points that I don't find helpful; I need to remember I'm not the only person in this discussion meant to see those points.

I'd be happy to step away and let other people talk it out more, but I feel like I'm the only one active making the points I feel like should be made. That might also be my fault, if I've been crowding out the other "lenient" people in a vicious cycle of talking too much --> needing to talk more.

I can't guarantee that I'll stop being obnoxious, but I'll try to do better.

Thanks for having different opinions from me Placeholderer (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To strike, it was more to help you in the future. With such a cut-and-dried case of violating ECR, simpler is better. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no worries. I don't often submit AE cases - honestly it just struck me as odd that they assumed I was an admin the second I did some basic clerking on an article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]