|
Glock 19X edit
Can you help add info about the very popular Glock 19X to the Glock page? You're good at article entries. I would do it but I'm afraid I'd screw it up, lol. 173.168.246.144 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I added an entry for it. 173.168.246.144 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Crime and the AR-15 edit
This section has been disused at length and arrived at by consensus. If you wish to alter it or remove it you need to make a case on the talk page and get that consensus overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The page can now not be edited, so I suggest you make your case at the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Rm, if you look through my edit history on the subjects in question you can see I am sympathetic with your POV. That said, things will work better if you listen to the other editors. I've been on the opposite side of most of them with regards to this discussion but we all need to assume good faith. I'm on the road so I can't weight in on the talk page. Don't worry if things don't change right away. We often don't get things the way we want but I do see room for possible improvements at least to the Glock article. You might take a look at the OpEd article that I was recently involved with. Springee (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
PA edit
Please read wp:npa. stop casting aspersions as to editors intents, bias or politics. It is against policy, does not strengthen your argument and can lead to sanctions if it becomes too problematic, please stop. Also please note the AR-15 article is under discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBGC).Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I expected this. Typical MO of leftists.
1. YOU violate POV with your obvious leftist propaganda.
2. You get called out for this.
3. You cry NPA.
Your intent is obvious from all your reversions, weaseling, stonewalling, and reporting.
You create conditions for discretionary sanctions to set your propaganda into concrete.
You're a political hack. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions edit
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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
This is just a formality, since you don't appear to have been notified. In addition to the discretionary sanctions that apply to all articles on the topic, AR-15 style rifle is under specific restrictions including "Consensus required", "Limit of one revert in 24 hours" and "Civility restriction". –dlthewave ☎ 17:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I breached 1RR myself (I forgot), hence why I did not mention anything more then PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
=
I am not exactly sure how to reply since I have never been involved in a dispute or discussion before. Forgive me if I amble through this. I will read through the instructions later. If I violated any rules, I apologize. But I did not view editing an article based on obvious lack of NPOV to be casting political aspersions. This is an objective criticism, not a political one. The non-NPOV is the violation, not my criticism of it. Rmmiller44 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:JamesFieldsCar.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:JamesFieldsCar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 edit
Hello, I'm Dharmalion76. I noticed that you recently removed content from VDARE without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to VDARE, 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. Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I explained in detail why I removed the content. The removed content was OPINION masquerading as facts by referring to articles in which people stated their opinions. Every article in Wikipedia could become polluted with unsupported opinions in this manner. My content removal was completely constructive because it relies on FACTS. The edited article allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Please do not remove people's edits saying they didn't give a reason when that reason was given explicitly. Revert my changes back and discuss them if you wish.Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
- You just removed large sections of heavily referenced content claiming it was POV. The talk page is the place for making arguments about changes this sweeping. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's all the explanation that is necessary. The POV bias is as obvious as a lump of coal in a bag of diamonds. It was the addition of this content that was a sweeping change in violation of Wiki standards, not my edit. You're employing a ratchet effect where offending content gets put in without resistance and then it takes a committee six months to discuss it with no resolution. Take out the content and then have someone explain in Talk why it deserves to be in there.
- Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of accurate, verifiable, sourced information. Your opinion? Not so much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The whole point of my edit was to remove inaccurate, unverified, and unsourced information. This isn't my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Your response is like a ten year old saying, "I'm not, but you are." You've added nothing to this discussion.
- No, the entire point of your edit was to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, now you are violating Wiki standards by attributing my edit to ideology. WP:USTHEM, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:AOTE. My deletion was ENTIRELY about the content consisting of unsupported, subjective opinions from a highly questionable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure, whatever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, now you are violating Wiki standards by attributing my edit to ideology. WP:USTHEM, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:AOTE. My deletion was ENTIRELY about the content consisting of unsupported, subjective opinions from a highly questionable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, the entire point of your edit was to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Excuse me? The whole point of my edit was to remove inaccurate, unverified, and unsourced information. This isn't my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Your response is like a ten year old saying, "I'm not, but you are." You've added nothing to this discussion.
- Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of accurate, verifiable, sourced information. Your opinion? Not so much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's all the explanation that is necessary. The POV bias is as obvious as a lump of coal in a bag of diamonds. It was the addition of this content that was a sweeping change in violation of Wiki standards, not my edit. You're employing a ratchet effect where offending content gets put in without resistance and then it takes a committee six months to discuss it with no resolution. Take out the content and then have someone explain in Talk why it deserves to be in there.
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
Dharmalion76 reverted an edit claiming I put "no valid reason" in the Edit Summary when it contained exactly that information. The removed content was obviously non-NPOV and the source is biased and unreliable. Beyond My Ken has attacked me with no meaningful discussion about the edit, lied about a consensus that removed source is reliable, and is harassing me by repeatedly posting on my talk page with unsubstantive comments about the edit.
- No administrative action has been requested here, nor is any such action required, so I am closing the
{{admin-help}}template. The correct venue for this discussion is the article's talkpage, where I see you have already opened a conversation; if a consensus to change the article emerges there, the content can be amended accordingly. Until such a consensus develops, however, the status quo of the article is the "correct" version. You would also be well-advised to moderate your tone in discussion with other users; blanket statements of your own correctness, brooking no argument, are very rarely effective here. Yunshui 雲水 14:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)- There is nothing wrong with my tone. You are not looking at the actions taken and the words and tone of people who attacked ME. I stated very clearly that Dharmalion76 reverted my changes claiming that I provided no explanation in the Edit summary when I did EXACTLY THAT. He didnt discuss it, he merely reverted the change and dismissed me. He is guilty of edit warring for doing so. Beyond My Ken has done nothing but snipe at me. He hasnt discussed anything. He asserted that the content and sources I deleted were "accurate and reliable" and decried my challenge of WP:RS as my "opinion." Then he accused me of "whitewashing" the article which violates several WP standards. He claimed that there was a consensus that SPLC is RS, but when I went to the talk page for that there was NO CONSENSUS. Did you even bother to read the content above? Because it looks like you are uncritically taking their side.Rmmiller44 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
Here are a few words of advice about some aspects of how you are handling this disagreement. I hope you will find them helpful.
- You have said that you were removing "unsourced information", but in fact what you removed was provided with sources; the fact that you don't like the sources in question does not alter that. If you have good reasons for doubting the reliability of those sources, then by all means explain those reasons, but that is not the same as there being no sources.
- You object to including information on the basis that someone has said so in some source. However, that is exactly how Wikipedia works: we accept content which is reported in sources, i.e. which the authors of sources have stated to be the case.
- You have accused Beyond My Ken of lying and attacking you. Please either provide evidence that he was lying or else retract the accusation. Saying that you think what he said was incorrect is not the same as saying that he was lying, which is a specific claim of dishonesty and bad faith. Unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty are contrary to Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I also strongly advise you to refrain from comments along the lines of "Your response is like a ten year old..." Doing so is not only uncivil, but it also does not encourage an atmosphere in which constructive debate is likely to take place, and in addition it is likely to backfire, because it may give other editors a poor impression of you, leading them to take less notice of what you say. At the worst, if an editor persists in name-calling and making personal attacks he or she may eventually be blocked from editing by an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sources are not merely places where things are published. They are fact-based repositories. An opinion doesnt become fact because someone published it. The "unsourced" information was in the referenced citations. For example, the Time magazine article asserted claims against VDARE without any sources or evidence. This is just the OPINION of the author. The entry purports to support a fact with a published opinion. This violates WP:RS standards.Rmmiller44 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
- No, WP does not work that way. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." The listed sources provide little to no information supporting the contentions made. They are OPINIONS.Rmmiller44 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
- The evidence for these attacks by Beyond My Ken is above. Just scroll up. In response to my claim that SPLC is not RS, he responded, "Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of accurate, verifiable, sourced information. Your opinion? Not so much." This is a snide attack on me that doesnt take my discussion seriously and doesnt respond to them. He accused me of "whitewashing" the entry which is a clear violation of WP:USTHEM, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:AOTE, to which he replied, "yeah, sure, whatever." Elsewhere, not on this talk page, he asserted that there was a consensus that SPLC is a RS. I went to that exact talk page and there was nothing but a long-running dispute about SPLC reliability. When someone claims there is consensus, you look there, and there is no consensus, that is called a "lie," not an error. But you dont have to take my word for it, you can read the SPLC discussion yourself. Show me a consensus that SPLC is RS, and I may relent. Your focus on the "ten year old" comment ignores the last part of that sentence: "I'm not, but you are." I challenged the source of the deleted material under WP:RS as an unsubstantiated opinion of SPLC. BMKs response was not to discuss this but to claim that my challenge was just an opinion and asserting SPLC is reliable. He was throwing my own claim back at me, hence I said he was making an "I'm not, but you are." argument. You are not unbiased here. You have not looked at the actions in sequence and how others responded to me. I made a good faith edit to an entry that violates WP standards of NPOV and RS. The others are doing what I have seen many times before on WP: nuisance reversions, no substantive debate, assertions of consensus that dont exist, status quo bias, and fallacious, childish arguments. People put obvious NPOV content in entries, and it stays there because the vandals filibuster every debate on removing it. Rmmiller44 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
- I am restoring the message I posted in its original form. I understand how posting your answers to each point immediately after that point can serve to make the connection between the original point and its answer clear, but unfortunately it fragments what I wrote, removes my signature from it, and makes it difficult for other readers to see who wrote what and in what sequence, so it isn't a good idea. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
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.
Doug Weller talk 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
DS violation edit
You just violated the editing restrictions on Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump with this edit:[1]. The editing restrictions state You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. Please self revert or you may be sanctioned.- MrX 🖋 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This is typical obstructionist reversions I'm well accustomed to on WP. Putting material into articles that violates WP standards goes without challenge in an imagined consensus, but then removing the offending material must go through a committee where those who favor the omitted material never respond. WP is turning into a propaganda machine. Removing the word "falsely" is trivial, correct, and removes no information.Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rmmiller44 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion should be about Slatersteven who violated WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:REVERT.
I started a talk discussion on this topic as have at least three other people. Slatersteven engaged in bad faith by categorically rejecting arguments other people made. He is acting as a one-man veto authority to maintain the status quo of numerous WP violations. Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
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.
Edit warring at Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump edit
Hello Rmmiller44. You've been warned for edit warring as the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked the next time you revert this article unless you obtain a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well, you already know all this, but just to underscore it: They always lie about the "rules," always enforce them in a one-sided, hypocritical fashion, where their side has carte blanche and they handcuff honest editors, and they always tag-team anyone who talks back to them. One of them will probably delete this paragraph, too. (They have an internal email system, which allows them to privately organize group hates, so as to make it look as though the whole world disagrees with you. They also have no concept of "consensus." Just try asking them for a definition: "Consensus is not A, B, C..." 24.168.114.73 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly right. And the co-founder of Wikipedia just wrote a blog in this very topic, possibly even referring to my proposed edit.
Leftist editors use leftist journalist opinions as "reliable sources." Look, they say, he said it! It's a fact!
And this same entry now has a section claiming Trump via Giuliani engaged in a "misinformation campaign." Again, taking someone's opinion and expressing it as a fact.
Wikipedia doesn't even pretend to be an encyclopedia anymore. It's all leftist propaganda.
Ive lost count of how many times they claimed to have "consensus," and when i actually checked Talk, there was no such consensus.
"Consensus" means that there are no reasonable objections to a statement. That is, nearly everyone agrees in the truth and accuracy of the statement. Someone...anyone...coming up with reasonable dissent breaks consensus. Consensus is NOT a majority. And it certainly isnt the result of stalwart propagandists merely stonewalling any meaningful discussion as was done here and in other edits I've made. ~~rmmiller44 Rmmiller44 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
NPOV violation edit
The last two paragraphs of the Career section are completely unrelated to Mr. Scalia's career and are nothing but NPOV propaganda criticizing him. To the extent these paragraphs are factual and relevant, they should be in their own section, e.g. Controversies.
But these paragraphs in this entry are symptomatic of a larger disease on Wikipedia of fomenting left wing propaganda. They present statements from "sources" that are not factual, but are political opinions. This is what I refer to as the "People are saying" justification. That is, it is a fact that "people" are saying this (political opponents), but at its heart their statements are not facts but biased opinions. This is a deliberate end-run around WP:NPOV that is rampant across this platform. This feature is omnipresent on the Wiki entries for anyone even remotely related to conservatives or the Republican party.
The remedy for this is removal of the offending paragraphs. No encyclopedia ever would contain information like this.
Now will come the typical attacks on my own purported biases, edit warring, claims of non-existent "consensus," perpetual stonewalling to protect the status quo, and calling all cars of left-wing editors. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Flag of the United States edit
The Flag of the United States entry is offensive. I've looked at the entries for more than a dozen national flags, and there are only TWO that have any mention of controversy or desecration: the US flag and the Israeli flag. Not surprising at all. This is yet another example of anti-American and anti-Israeli hatred being perpetrated and perpetuated by Wikipedia.
There is no place whatsoever for an expanded section on flag burning in this entry. It is an encyclopedia entry for the FLAG, not what people think about it or do to it.
The passage about Ronald Reagan's own interpretation about the colors of the flag is wrong. That isnt HIS interpretation of the colors, it is THE interpretation of the colors from heraldry. The colors of our flag have the same meanings as the colors of the British flag: valor, purity, and vigilance. Rmmiller44 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
PA edit
This [[2]] might well constitute a violation of wp:npa, you commment on content not users or their motives. Your argument is not made stronger by ad hominems.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As did your latest addition here. Please stop with the assumptions of bad faith.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2021 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at AR-15 style rifle. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Loafiewa (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Note I am being super nice and assuming you did not read the notice on the talk page, and thus did not know the page is under a wp:1RR restriction, and that it also has sticker civility requirements. However you are now aware, and so this is a final warning. You have been informed of the DS, and there is really no excuse for ignoring them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Also you need to read wp:talk, they aren't for discussing users' actions. If you have an issue with a user take it to wp:ani, I would strongly advise you against taking our latest dispute there.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You are not being super nice at all. You are taking sides with a bad faith actor who obviously violated WP:NPOV, refuses to engage in good faith discussion, violates WP:REVERT, and claims consensus in his favor that doesnt exist. Spare me your condescending rebuke. You are not at all impartial on this matter.
Your actions are EXACTLY what I have complained about many times. A person violates WP standards. I correct and oppose those violations. The person reverts my changes and stonewalls discussion. Then he calls in an Admin who always and everywhere takes his side.
I assumed good faith until Slatersteven demonstrated he had no good faith. Look at his history on the talk pages. He categorically rejects the repeated criticisms of the subject section. He acts as if he is a one-man veto authority. There are at least FOUR people who have opposed this section in recent history, i.e. there is no consensus for its inclusion. These people have all given fact-based reasons to exclude it. Slatersteven simply rejects those arguments claiming that "Someone said this about this topic, hence it is relevant." That is an abuse of WP:RS. Opinions do not become facts merely because they have been reported in a newspaper.
I strongly advise you refresh your memory on WK standards and try to be less biased in your approach. Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- You need to actually read who wrote what (and when). I said I was being supernice in not reporting you for edit warring, the person who issued you the above civility warning said nothing about being nice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions edit
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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
Just a reminder since you're active at AR-15 again. –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Don't abuse our noticeboards or our editors edit
Not only did you post this irrelevant rant at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but you edit warred against the person who removed it. Please read the descriptions of what our noticeboards are for before you post irrelevant stuff on them. In this case, the Reliable sources noticeboard is "for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context"; all you have to do to see it is look at the top of the page. Your complaint about alleged left-wing bias has nothing whatever to do with asking about particular sources' reliability. I have now hatted the thread; the only reason I didn't remove it outright was that other people had already commented. Please don't abuse one of our noticeboards again.
As for abusing our editors, if I had seen this outrageous attack in a timely fashion, you would now be blocked. Don't do it again. BTW, "consensus" is something of a term of art on Wikipedia; it does not mean "something everyone can live with" — if it did, it would be impossible to write articles at all. See WP:CONSENSUS. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
I apologize if I put it in the wrong place, but the person who deleted it gave a vague and condescending reason. Nothing I said was a "rant." It was a detailed description of a serious problem on WP. For millennials with the attention span of a gnat, I can see why it appears to be a rant.
You are plainly wrong about consensus. Consensus occurs all the time in decision making. That's why we have a word for it. It is not a "term of art" but a well defined concept in decisionmaking.
Your response is proof of what I alleged in my comment. A polite, respectful, unbiased, and helpful admin would tell me where the proper place is to address it. Instead, you climbed on top of the dogpile of people suppressing that this is going on.
I've made no "outrageous attacks." I was responding to outrageous attacks and blatant violations of WP standards. You are turning the complaint process on its head, blaming the victim. Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- If have already told you where to take complaints against users wp:ani, I would strongly advise against it. And can you say what the attack against you was?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
You need to actually READ the section on Consensus that you linked to. Everything in that sections supports me. All of it.
Slatersteven has been filibustering changes to the AR article for months. Multiple editors gave him detailed explanations of why the section violated WP:NPOV. He responded by asserting that a quote of someone's OPINION was RS.
You need to READ what people said and how he responded. You're nothing but a Slatersteven meatpuppet. Rmmiller44 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Be quiet. I'm not interested in listening to your BS anymore. Rmmiller44 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite block edit
El_C 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)