User talk:Aeonx/Archive/2024/May

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1RR violation
This is a violation of the 1rr sanction in place on the ARBPIA topic area. Please self revert. Additionally, the edit summary is unacceptable. Keep your focus on content, not contributors. If you believe there is a behavioral issue take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I've raised the NPOV issues on the talk page, which is where it should be raised. The comment adds context to those unfamiliar. Therefore, I will not self-revert my comment. I think it's appropriate. I have not broken the 1RR/24 HOURS sanction. I suggest you review it yourself before trying to lecture me. Aeonx (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was already reverted but another editor, but let me make this clear: further violations of 1RR will result in blocks. Also further commentary like What's your agenda here? Do you have personal views on the topic? will result in a topic ban. I warned you just above to stop commentary on editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "It will result in a topic ban" under what grounds? Your warning is sounding like childish ke draconian thrats aimed to silence editing that you personally don't agree with or are offended by. I have no intention to offend you and I'm sorry if I have. It's an innocent question you've purposefully ignored.
 * I've been diligent here in asking a genuine NPOV question. You seem to have an agenda here on this topic and I was simply asking if you do that may present bias.
 * That's not grounds for a topic ban, it's appropriate editorial due diligence. I on the other hand have no agenda of bias, and frankly little interest in the topic other than my 10+ years of editing Wikipedia for military history topics. What I do have an interest in is when I come across such blatant POV pushing. Noting I've been fighting it on Wikipedia for again, 10+ years.
 * If you have an issue an administrative raise it in the appropriate places and use the appropriate warnings in references to relevant Wikipedia policy.
 * This is the last comment I'll make here to you. You're not welcome on my talk page with your baseless threats of topic bans.
 * Aeonx (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've confused editors here on my talk page. Disregard comment above. Aeonx (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is unrelated to 1RR or 3RR. You are simply POV pushing by falsely claiming the news report of a reliable source, the Washington Post, as an opinion piece. If you can't get any other reliable source to counter the "most lethal war" statement, I kindly ask you to back down. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The source is fine. No issues with the source, but don't interpret an OPINION as fact. It's not a fact. It's an opinion. Im not pushing any POV. Generally I suggest you take this to the talk page, article discussion / arguments don't belong on MY talk page. Accusing me of POV pushing is ironic. Maybe worth a look at the neutrality of your recent edits. Aeonx (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you insist that the Washington Post article is an opinion piece and attempt to edit the article to make it sound like an opinion, I believe WP:ANI is a better place to discuss the issue for your deliberately misrepresenting the cited source. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think so, go ahead. Again, I would suggest the article talk page is the place to discuss.
 * It's worth noting, the Washington Post article is written by the journalists and graphic artists who only compared the war to a small number of conflicts: "than were destroyed during the Syrian regime’s battle for Aleppo from 2013 to 2016 and the U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria, in 2017."
 * It's a limited sample size and specific to a small number of recent 21st century conflicts.
 * The source is fine, as an opinion. But inflating the source to say something it doesn't, is not fine. What's your agenda here? Do you have personal views on the topic?
 * Aeonx (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Imo you are WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war and arguing against a consensus of editors. This apart from your characterization of the article as POV pushing by some editors.

I think it is time to drop the stick. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * At least you have the decency to state something which is an opinion, accurately as an opinion as opposed to stating it as a fact. I would point out my comments (at least recently) are only on talkpage topic I raised and I've made no significant comment to any of the other discussion - so I think it's rather unfair and incivil to accuse me of bludgeoning the entire talkpage. As for consensus, I don't agree it's been reached; nor has anyone, besides you now, here, claimed so. Moreover, most my comments are replies to comments directed to me or @ mentioning me. I will however, reinterpret your point in that there appears to be a group of editors that seem to either intentionally ignore my questions and arguments/counter-arguments and instead seem adopt a WP:ICHY approach- which really don't improve the article or resolve anything, leading to me to make further replies. What other choice do I have? Ignore the problem? Aeonx (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)