173.24.39.178

If you're here about the Stallman thing, I stand by it.

Original Synthesis

You mean well, but you cannot conduct your own research on Wikipedia pages by combining sources to make a point. This is known as Original Synthesis and is not permitted. You need a very good, reliable source, to make the connection between the two. It cannot come from you. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

None of it was original. It was all from the sources cited. You've pared down my edit from being wordier, and still less detailed than accounts of Stallman's other actions and opinions, to being the bare minimum it can possibly be and still claim to have mentioned the issue.

Please read the Original Synthesis policy. The problem is your are combining original sources to make a point not contained in either. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

IT'S IN THE DAILY DOT ARTICLE THAT IS STILL BEING CITED. "In 2003, Stallman said child pornography, incest, and pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and prostitution “should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.”"

Either you're not paying attention or you're being deliberately mendacious.

So use that source. Don't line up statements from a primary source when you don't need it. Primary sources are problematic, especially when controversial. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the Stallman article to reflect your suggestion. It now cites the same Daily Dot article 9 times, even though the Daily Dot is itself citing Stallman's blog.

That's the point of secondary sources. They're the ones that do the synthesis, and determine what's relevant and connected to the story. Not Wikipedia. I'm sorry you think that people are being difficult about this. But Wikipedia has very strict policies about biographies and material that could be libellous. The bar for inclusion is purposely high, and rightly so. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that maybe you're okay; I remain convinced that the reason the Stallman article has systematically excluded his advocacy for pedophilia (etc) for years is pure bias, and that flat removing my mentions of new coverage on the topic instead of editing it to be better or finding more sources was an example of it. Stallman.org, his personal site, is cited throughout the article for quotes about him and his opinions, but is suddenly not a good enough citation for his opinions on pedophilia? Give me a break.

For some context, take a look at statistics on the Stallman article: [1] It has very decentralized authorship. Haukur (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Richard Stallman. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please also see my further comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive 10#Help filing a claim?. – bradv🍁 23:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I feel like this is going to age especially poorly once more outlets pick up the current Stallman debacle.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Richard Stallman. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me what about the article wasn't neutral, or well-cited, or commentary? No part of it was commentary, it was all direct quotes from either primary or secondary sources.

Hell, most of it was Stallman quotes ripped from news sources or his blog.

---