User talk:92.13.245.159

May 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Hate speech, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Hate speech" doesn't actually exist as a form of speech, it is in actuality an interpretation of "Hate" by the hearer, which is a subjective interpretation and should not be considered as anything more than "hurt feelings".
 * Removing the above statement is a "hate speech" fallacy, your feelings don't get to dictate reality. Failing to reinstate this statement is ludicrous. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hate speech. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. ''Please discuss the matter at Talk:Hate speech. Thank you!'' ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I do not want to revert again, per my self-imposed 1RR, so please provide sources for the material (or remove it). It appears like original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hate speech" doesn't actually exist as a form of speech, it is in actuality an interpretation of "Hate" by the hearer, which is a subjective interpretation and should not be considered as anything more than "hurt feelings".
 * You not liking this statement doesn't give you right to remove it. It is a valid statement as "Hate speech" has no single, consistent definition, therefore this definition is valid. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but Wikipedia needs a source for that. It appears like you believe this is true, but that's not the inclusion criteria for facts on Wikipedia. Just cite a reliable source saying that. See Verifiability, not truth. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hate speech" doesn't actually exist as a form of speech, it is in actuality an interpretation of "Hate" by the hearer, which is a subjective interpretation and should not be considered as anything more than "hurt feelings". "Hate speech" can't exist without an audience, therefore it is the fault of the hearer not the speaker, just as a tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound unless an audience is present.
 * source provide: https://philosophybreak.com/articles/if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-theres-no-one-around-to-hear-it-does-it-make-a-sound/ 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't mention "hate" or "speech" at all. You seem to be correlating two concepts (hate speech and the If a tree falls in a forest problem) without the source mentioning the correlation at all, which is again original research, prohibited on Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It refers to sound and conscious acknowledgement of sound, stop being pedantic. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not engage in personal attacks. I am just pointing out the "No original research" policy to explain why the material is somewhat inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially at the beginning of the article. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an attack, it was an observation. Your perception of it as an attack is a perfect example of how my speech could be interpreted as hateful, although it most definitely was just a simple descriptor of your stance.
 * Read the statement again, internalise the meta conception and realise how you are wrong by removing the statement.
 * "Hate speech" can't exist without an audience, therefore it is the fault of the hearer not the speaker, just as a tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound unless an audience is present.
 * Read it again. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * added source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a quote from that article verifying the material? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster says that "Pedantic is an insulting word", so I considered it a personal attack. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 * To quote No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. [...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." That material could be right, it could be wrong, but Wikipedia values verifiability, not truth. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”
 * — United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2019 92.13.245.159 (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pedantic: excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous. Not an insult, even if you "feel" that it was, doesn't make it so. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not just feel it was. Merriam Webster said it. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, and putting this statement as the second sentence is to prevent the common misunderstanding that others are responsible for one's own subjective interpretation of hurt feelings. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how does that confirm that "'Hate speech' doesn't actually exist as a form of speech"? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get that you want to dissuade me by continuing a pedantic stance, being obtuse and failing (likely purposefully) to comprehend a simple correlation between the philosophy of communication and the subjective interpretation of communication.
 * It is disingenuous. Again, not insulting you, merely remarking upon your argument. No matter how you "feel", the reality is that no "other" is responsible for how you interpret said "other". 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and finally, any additional replies you make to this will go unread, so that you can become the tree falling, without me there to hear the sound. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * addendum: If I was being anything other than genuine, i would have removed other parts of the article to reinforce my statement, however i did not, as there is no consensus of a definition, doing so would have been crass. once more, hate is a feeling, not a form of speech. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise, but I don't know what to tell you. I've already pointed out the relevant policies, verifiability and no original research. Wikipedia is not for making arguments for whether some information is true/valid or not - there's Wikidebate at Wikiversity for that -. It is for presenting facts and analysis already made by reliable sources. You also need to discuss when your added material is disputed per WP:Consensus. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if this statement is removed again, a system of bots with cycling IPs will edit it back in until the heat death of the universe. 92.13.245.159 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be edit warring and a violation of Bot policy. The page hate speech can be protected from edits by new users. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Hate speech, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please do not add your own interpretation of sources, see WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia relies on sources, not individual editors' conclusions.'' Sjö (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)