User talk:Ashy Waves

Welcome!
Hello, Ashy Waves, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

, hello and thanks. I would like to figure out how to make my references look nicer, but I'll probably do that another day, perhaps over the weekend. Nice to meet you. Ashy Waves (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to start with this helpful guide. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

, thanks. That helped a lot. Ashy Waves (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Belgian Congo
Hi Ashy Waves, thanks for your work on "The Belgian Congo". However, would it be possible to explain why you revert other editors edits. This seems to turn into an edit war, while there seems to be no real reason for it. Kind regards. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Belgians spread propaganda that they were improving healthcare and education, and while it is true that things were better under them than under King Leopold's rule, even the "improved" versions still resulted in significant depopulation. It was, in essence, a brutal forced labor regime, only mild in comparison to the previous forced labor regime. The material in the books by Jules Marchal is quite dense, so I am trying to add information bit by bit, but it is quite frustrating when you keep deleting my changes so I have to redo them. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire article at least. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is riddled with inaccuracies. It would be impossible to correct them all at once. Jules Marchal is perhaps the best expert on the subject, certainly very well regarded, and he wrote volumes about forced labor and related issues in the Belgian Congo. Only two of his books were translated into English, unfortunately, and one of those in an abridged form. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Adam Hochschild in the introduction he wrote for Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts, "[Jules Marchal's] contribution is an essential one. No other scholar, looking at any other part of Africa, has studied colonial forced labour as thoroughly as Marchal has in the Congo. A storyteller or a popular writer for a mass audience he is not, but as a researcher who knew how to find what was hidden in government and corporate documents he is unmatched. Marchal's 40 years in government service taught him how to uncover documents that writers of laudatory biographies and cheerful corporate histories have long ignored." Short of personally going through the primary source documents myself (assuming I could find and understand them), there is probably no better source of information about the Belgian Congo than Jules Marchal. So if you could please stop putting Belgian propaganda in there, that would be helpful, and I could focus on adding more details about the forced labour regime. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Belgians were and still are monsters. Hochschild is a hero and finally showed how the weak Congolese were abused by the evil Belgians. Men had to work all day and go find rubber and palm oil and gold and copper and many other resources so their children could eat. When they got home, they only had a few hours of sleep. Also the Belgians abused the poor Congolese all day. They were absolute monsters and the Congolese had to work until they died. All day and every day. Hochschild said these things so they are true. All other evidence is Belgian (aka 'evil') propaganda. Thank you for these insights, I was blind, but now I see.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hochschild is a journalist, but other evidence is propaganda, only Hochschild knows the truth. Jules Marchal was a Belgian FYI and he wasn't an academic either, as he said himself "Alles wat ik schrijf is nieuw. Mijn boeken zijn gebaseerd op archieven die nooit door iemand zijn geconsulteerd, die nooit gebruikt zijn door andere historici."Jules Marchal over dwangarbeid in Kongo, Het Belang van Limburg, 23 maart 2002 Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the men did not work "so their children could eat". They were forced to work threats of prison and the chicotte, a type of whip. This in fact prevented them from having time to grow their own food and lead to widespread starvation. In so far as these methods were milder than the mass killings and cuttings off of hands that took place under King Leopold, things were somewhat better. Specific Belgians did take the side of the natives, or at least advocate for better treatment, and many Belgian citizens were no doubt unaware of the sordid affair. However, on the whole, those Belgian officials who were in power treated the natives terribly. Since you are apparently unwilling to actually do proper research thus far, and feel the need to make strawman arguments to make yourself look better, please leave the article alone until you are in the mood to do proper research. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You started an edit war, as a new user on an article you have never worked on, and have only added info on one topic, in a general section of the article. It would have been possible to make a 'forced labour section', or find a good way to edit the article, based on consensus. But you chose differently. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

An edit war? I was trying to gradually correct the article and add further details, and you kept adding in inaccuracies over and over again faster than I could add new information so I kept getting these pages saying there was an edit conflict when I tried to add more stuff. If you don't want an "edit war" or whatever you call that, then stop repeatedly adding false information. In any case, I doubt I will ever find consensus with someone who writes off forced labor, enforced by prison and the whip, as simply men working all day so their children could eat, when in fact the labor prevented them from being able to properly feed their children. If you had taken the time to look at my references, perhaps you would not have made such a mistake, but instead you leaped to conclusions and falsely represented my views. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

To list your strawmans. 1. "The Belgians were and still are monsters." and "They were absolute monsters" The evidence shows that some Belgians - in particular Belgians who held power during that time period - perpetrated forced labor. Specific Belgians protested, either asking for better conditions for the natives or the abolition of forced labor entirely. Numerous Belgian citizens were doubtless unaware. 2. "Hochschild is a hero and finally showed how the weak Congolese were abused by the evil Belgians." Hochschild was hardly the first person to point this out. The Congo Reform Association, including such figures as E.D. Morel, was instrumental in exposing the brutalities of Leopold's regime. Hochschild was an excellent historian who went through much of the information left behind by the Congo Reform association and presented it in an easier to read format. Jules Marchal also pored over a great deal of primary source material relating to the Congo under King Leopold and the later Belgian government, information that was left thanks to the efforts of people such as Dr. Raingeard and others who were present at the time. 3. "Men had to work all day and go find rubber and palm oil and gold and copper and many other resources so their children could eat." No, not so that their children could eat, but to avoid prison and the chicotte (or worse during the time of King Leopold). This forced labour in fact resulted in widespread starvation. 4. "They were absolute monsters" The Belgians fell along a spectrum, some perpetrating awful abuses, some recommending a lessening of abuses, some opposing forced labour outright 5. "the Congolese had to work until they died" Some but not all Congolese were worked to death. 6. "All day and every day." Periods of forced labor varied. 7. "Hochschild said these things so they are true." There are a great number of primary sources cited by Jules Marchal and others. People who were actually there. 8. "All other evidence is Belgian (aka 'evil') propaganda." Hochschild built work on the evidence left by others. He is not the only decent historian, and in fact the books I cited were by Jules Marchal. However, the piece of information you repeatedly kept trying to add was clearly in stark contradiction to the facts.

Going over all the evidence to support my views and find the appropriate page numbers would take time, but it took you hardly any time at all to jump to conclusions based on your personal intuition and write back to back strawman arguments. With such a person as you, interested more in personal intuition and coming up with ways to strawman an opponent as quickly as possible, consensus is not a likely possibility. Ashy Waves (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you are on a personal quest. You talk about "your own personal opinions/views" and your "opponents" that are ignorant because they don't understand your genius. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A personal quest? Because you believe I am the only one who cares about forced labor? In spite of numerous books written by people who apparently care too? Your certainly haven't been reaching conclusions based on facts, so it must've been intuition, and terrible intuition at that. And you are an opponent. You make repeated strawman arguments. That behavior is consistent with being an opponent. It's not something you do to a friend or anyone you are interested in having a working relationship with. And there you go again with the strawmans. I never claimed to be any sort of genius. Anyone with literacy and a bit of patience can go and read the same things I read. If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, then you have no business interfering. Ashy Waves (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing you wrote is new, and nothing you wrote is denied by me. It is not about what you wrote, it is about where in the article you wrote it, how it was sourced and what the motivation was of your edits. It is also about framing information (when did it happen, where, ..) and incorporating it in the existing article. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if you move the information. If you want to make a section titled forced labour or something like that and move most of the information I've been adding there, then fine, but that doesn't mean that inaccuracies should be allowed to flourish elsewhere. The Belgian government, as a whole, did not place a high priority on healthcare or education of the natives. I originally intended to simply delete that inaccurate statement for now and then come back to the issue later, but I saw that statement was reappearing somehow (and now it seems that you were the one putting it back), so I went ahead and added information based on Jules Marchal's research in its place, so that whomever was putting it back (apparently you) could see the corrected version and go check the book if they so wished. As I've stated before, though, Jules Marchal's books are very dense. It's easier to try to fix and improve the article on the Belgian Congo in small bits, not all at once. The information about when and where is spread out. Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts, for example, contains 13 chapters plus the Afterword, overall covering the time period from 1911 to 1945, with different chapter focusing on different time periods and regions. Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts focuses on forced labour in the palm groves. Another book by Jules Marchal covers forced labour in the gold and copper mines, from the time period from 1910-1945. Jules Marchal wrote other books, but only those two were translated into English. I don't know if you were the one who deleted my first attempts at editing that article but I hadn't figured out how to make the references look nice yet. Fortunately, I dream of horses was kind enough to help with that. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Slavery edits
Please stop adding the statistics to lead sections of countries like here and here. Use the Human rights subsection if need be, but don't spam every country's lead sections with a single source's information. Juxlos (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

, please stop deleting information about the fates of people who are being abused and often tortured in large numbers. If you simply wanted to move the information, you could have done so, but instead you chose to simply delete it, as if those people's lives mean nothing. I can provide many more sources than just the one, but did you ask? No, you simply chose to cover up the existence of people's suffering at the hands of others. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I preferred that you move the information yourself, since you can probably figure it out. But very well, I'll move it. Juxlos (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also while you're at it you could've wikilinked Global Slavery Index at least Juxlos (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

, thanks. I've never been much good at organisation anyway, even when not confronted by a confusing user interface full of unfamiliar buttons, and have generally thought organisation best saved for one of the later stages of revision. I will endeavor to add a greater variety of references to the sections you add, over time, not all today. And I'm not quite sure what wikilinking is. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically adding  to stuff to turn them blue e.g. Human rights in China instead of Human rights in China. Juxlos (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Testing Global Slavery Index Ashy Waves (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you listetning what others say or what? As I told you, you can simply forget that such a detailed info will stay in the main article about Poland. Short section about most important topic of polish economy and you are putting there an info about... slavery? Please move this topic to the talk page.NeonFor (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

, this is the first time you've said anything to me, so far as I can tell. As for slavery, the fact that Poland still hasn't managed to eliminate forced labor from its economy in 2018 is the most important thing about the Polish economy. If the article were a person and not just a webpage, it should feel ashamed that this incredibly important information as so far not been included within it. Please stop censoring evidence that the Polish economy is not completely based on free labor. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

there is no country in this world which have completly free economy. and you are totally wrong about the importance of this small almost non-existing factor. I am moving your work to this section Slavery in Poland - this is the place where it should be located.NeonFor (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

, the Polish economy isn't even slavery-free, let alone free in every other way implied in the classical sense. And you are completely wrong. 0.48% of the population is far from non-existent. That's nearly 1 in 200 people. To pretend otherwise is utterly ludicrous. And given the plethora of references I've provided, there is no excuse for your seeming ignorance. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC) I would add that Poland has a prevalence rank of 24 of 167 in the Global Slavery Index, which is high, especially for a European country.
 * I have to agree that the information in not relevant for country articles. That said good to see the info moved rather then just deleted.--Moxy (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nearly one in 200 people in Poland are enslaved. Not including references, the article is 22,101 words long, according to an automated word count. If such a horrible fate of nearly one in 200 people is not relevant enough to include in the article, then neither is almost everything else in there. Plenty of far less important information is included: art, music, fashion, etc. If this is genuinely about importance, then I invite the two of you to shorten the article to under 200 words. Given that neither of you have shown any inclination to do this so far, it would seem that this is not about importance, but rather about presenting a pro-Europe bias that hides anything bad about Poland in separate articles, hidden from easy view. Ashy Waves (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's best you start a discussion on Poland talk page and stop placing information which wasn't discussed. Failure of discussion creates Edit warring and is a breach of Wikipedia's regulation, hence you can be banned from editing Wikipedia. Oliszydlowski, 12:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Yes we have the same problem in a few articles.....plus join the conversationsession about these edits all over.--Moxy (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, I have replied to the comments left here, in spite of how ridiculous some of them are. To say that the information was not discussed, when you should be able to see just by scrolling up that it was in fact discussed, is blatantly untrue. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand but the discussion should be conducted on Poland talk page so all users contributing to the article can have a chance in the discussion. This can't be settled on user or private talk page between 2 or 3 users. That's the Wikipedia Policy. Oliszydlowski, 12:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, then why didn't you simply explain that this discussion was located in the incorrect place, rather than falsely accusing me of not discussing in spite of clear evidence to the contrary? I fail to see how talking on a Poland talk page will give "all users" a chance to contribute when many probably won't think to look there, but I'll take your word for it that there's some policy designating it the correct place, at least. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Poland and other articles
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * SOrry, but it looks like your were past 3RR by a country mile before you went to the talk page. We'll see if another admin feels inclined to unblock. Sorry. --Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, is it normal to explain things like 3RR by blocking people? Some sort of hazing ritual that most people go through, so at least I'm not alone? Is there a quick summary of other things I am likely to be blocked for if I don't know about them? Ashy Waves (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Five pillars is a summary of the most prominent principles. That seen I have no problem with an unblock if Ashy Waves agrees to talk things out and not force their edits in. Agree with Ashy Waves that they may not have been aware of 3revert rule....but we where have problems on many articles...thus this was to prevent that.....if no more waring is forth coming...I see no problem with them joining chats about this now.--Moxy (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks,. Ashy Waves (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * }} Me too. I think. Looks like the latest reviewing admin declined. Will send it back to the blocking admin. I assume you understand that you can't continue to revert and claim to be taking part in the discussion. LOoks like you'd stopped. do you think it would be OK? --Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

100% consensus? What a joke. I suppose there is also 100% consensus that I do not even exist. Are you aware that the computer from which you typed the false claim that there was "100% consensus" about this was likely made by slaves? How do you think they would feel that you are using a product they were tortured into making for you to go on about how there is "100% consensus" about their lack of importance? Ashy Waves (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. That little word-explosion may prove counter-productive. If that was meant as an addendum to your unblock appeal, it would not help your cause at all. It gives the impression of editing with an ax to grind. You might wish to strike or remove.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * After your block expires, please keep in mind WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are a lot of places on the Internet where you can use your zeal to bring social injustices to the forefront and shine a spotlight on them but Wikipedia is not one of those places. --Neil N  talk to me 13:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, I do not see how that second link is applicable (and as for the first, I shall try to return to that later, or bit by bit), but I can see how you might need some explanation of why I do not see how it is applicable, especially if you have not been following the details of the dispute. To quote what you linked, "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [list of examples] on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."

I made sure that inserting references was one of the first Wikipedia formatting thingies I learned how to use, and even before I figured out the formatting of references, I still included references, albeit incorrectly formatted ones. Take, for example, the Global Slavery Index. If you go to this page, you can see a listing of experts who have contributed to the Global Slavery Index, along with brief explanations of their qualifications.

If you search Google News for "Global Slavery Index", you can see that a wide variety of news sources consider the Global Slavery Index to be a website worth citing. Google News returns about 4,510 results. Here are just a few examples.

Some things citing the Global Slavery Index and specifically mentioning Poland.

I believe this establishes that the Global Slavery Index is well-regarded by a variety of news agencies, and that I am not simply doing "Advertising, marketing or public relations" for an insignificant website, but I can continue providing more examples if those are insufficient.

The US Department of State produces an annual Trafficking in Person report, which includes information about many countries.

As for the topic of modern slavery more broadly, and not simply estimates of the numbers, there are many books, news articles, documentaries, and videos on the subject.

Some of the books about modern slavery in my collection are:

This is by no means a complete listing of books available on modern slavery. Further examples can be provided if needed.

A wide variety of news sources discuss modern slavery. For example, the CNN Freedom Project focuses on the topic of modern day slavery.

Al Jazeera has published a series of videos on the topic of modern slavery.

A section of The Guardian's website focuses on slavery.

BBC also has a section focusing on slavery.

The New York Times has a section on human trafficking.

There are a number of videos and documentaries about modern slavery.

Journal articles

Not done providing examples of the abundant published information about modern slavery available, but going away from my computer for awhile and wish to save my progress.

In any case, a number of people around here apparently feel that the topic of the suffering of these people simply isn't important, regardless of the number of references offered. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Updated Ashy Waves (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have demonstrated my intention go along with Wikipedia's custom of discussing things on article talk pages, rather than on my own talk page. However, if it is also the custom to remain silent, even on talk pages, in the face of blatantly untrue facts, I do not intend to go along with that, nor would I be worth my salt if I did. It would also seem that there are plenty of people who are far more guilty of having "an axe to grind" than I am. I would point out that I haven't blocked anyone, nor would I have even if I could. (Though I may have to clarify that my suggesting that, depending on what the rules are, perhaps another editor should be blocked as well, was intended more as a way of expressing my confusing regarding the one-sideness of these whole proceedings than as a serious suggestion that he be blocked.) Certainly, if it is normal procedure to block people until they pretend to agree with others, it would disprove the claim that Wikipedia is based on collaboration. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, I would also add that if there is one thing I have learned from all this, it is that Wikipedia does not work by collaboration. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ashy Waves is reluctant to concede there was anything wrong with their edits. My concern is that if they are unblocked they will be back again at WP:AN3 very quickly. I would consider offering an unblock condition relating to human rights, but based on their last comment I doubt it would work. (The comments about 'blatantly untrue facts' and 'axe to grind' don't inspire confidence). I agree with User:NeilN's observation about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits were referenced, and I have numerous other references available if the ones I already provided are considered insufficient for whatever reason. I have conceded that there were some rules regarding disputes of which I was unaware, but quite frankly, other people don't seem to be following them either. JamesBWatson claimed that "there was 100% consensus", and even if for whatever reason I don't count as a person, there was at least one person above who seemed fine with the idea of including statistics about slavery in articles, as long as they weren't in "the lead" and additional references were provided. JamesBWatson's statement is thus blatantly untrue. I have already begun responding to NeilN's complaint about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and although I have not yet finished, I believe there is enough there already to demonstrate the point that the RIGHTGREATWRONGS complaint is, upon examination, rather baseless. There are numerous reputable references on the topic of modern slavery, the topic is simply incredibly neglected on Wikipedia. As for axes to grind, I would point out once again that you blocked me even after I was complying with the request of one of the people above. I certainly haven't tried to block you. It would seem that if anyone here has an axe to grind, your axe is much bigger than mine. I stand by the statement that I have learned that Wikipedia does not work by collaboration. There has been nothing collaborative about this experience. Hardly any discussion about the quality or contents of the references, a great deal of censorship, a lot of accusations, some of which were untrue, and a great number of heartfelt opinions that the extreme suffering of millions of people simply isn't important. Considering the bureaucratic hoops that must apparently be jumped through in order to add well-referenced material about modern slavery on Wikipedia, my guess is that continuing at the present pace, it will take several decades at the very least to fix Wikipedia's gross undercoverage of the topic. And for all the talk about consensus, I see hardly any effort at reaching any such thing and instead a great deal of effort to use censorship as a tool to persuade people to merely pretend to share consensus with you. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the "What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them" statement which is key here. For example, there's no doubt that opioid use disorder is one of the most significant social challenges facing many countries today. Yet you're likely not going to find any mention of it in any top-level country articles because editors have deemed it would have undue weight. You need to convince other editors that the material you want to add is important enough for the article and not just a way to highlight an issue you think needs more attention. --Neil N  talk to me 16:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, I am uncertain if you missed my longer reply above or if you simply consider all of the references provided therein to be irrelevant. In case you simply missed it, I am reposting below. I don't see much point in this page permanently containing a double-copy, though, so feel free to delete one of the two copies, and, if so inclined, reply to whichever one you leave in. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I skimmed over it but it's not me you need to discuss with, it's the editors interested in the articles you're editing. I'm just giving you some advice on how to approach matters after your block expires. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless you have expressed an opinion, though perhaps I should not think too hard on that line of thought lest my head hurt any worse. In any case, comparing slavery to opioid use disorder is a very, very poor comparison. Slavery is something people are subjected to against their will. While I'm sure there are some cases of forced drugging, most cases of opiod use seem to be voluntary. The article linked estimates that 16 million people have been affected at one point in time by opioid use disorder. The 2016 Global Slavery Index estimates that at any given time, 45.8 million people are enslaved. Another estimate states that 89 million have been enslaved at some point within the past 5 years. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC) While enslaved, people often suffer from a variety of related crimes such as kidnapping, sexual abuse including rape, torture, and murder, not to mention a variety of health problems relating to stress, overwork, and malnourishment. Simply put, slavery is a far, far bigger problem than opioid abuse disorder. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC) , perhaps you should read it. The Poland article is anything but neutral. While material which might be damaging to Poland's reputation as some sort of paradise is hidden away on separate pages, the denialist view of slavery in Poland is included. "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery" indeed! It would probably be true to say that most Polish people dislike slavery, but rejection implies more than that, rejection implies the successful elimination of slavery, which has not occurred. The Poland article is not written in accord with "verifiablity" or "netural point of view", it's written in accord with wishful thinking. The existence of slavery in Poland is established by books, journals, and news articles, and there are many books, journals, and news articles establishing the existence of slavery worldwide, a number of which specifically cite the Global Slavery Index, because, unlike people around here, they don't consider it dubious just because they don't like what it has to say. The Statesman’s Yearbook 2017: The Politics, Cultures, and Economies of the World is a book, encyclopedic in nature, which considers the Global Slavery Index worth citing in their articles about countries, including Poland, whereas they do not consider the denialist viewpoint worth including. The Stateman's Yearbook would seem to agree with my assessment that slavery is a bigger issue than opioid abuse disorder, as I can find nothing in it about opioids, whereas they repeatedly mention the Global Slavery Index. The Statesman’s Yearbook 2017 is neutral and verifiable. Wikipedia is not. While numerous news agencies (including right-leaning ones), journals, and books are doing their part to raise the hue and cry about slavery, Wikipedia is working against them, hiding information about slavery less significant pages and maintaining the denialist view of slavery on the main Poland mage. Ashy Waves (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read over Advocacy.--Moxy (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps best you read over Single-purpose account as well.--Moxy (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

, you seem reluctant to come right out and say that you don't believe that the information is neutral or verifiable or well-referenced or whatever, and yet you keep linking to webpages which imply that this is your view. For example, the one you just linked says, "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." I have spent over a year now researching the topic of slavery, both modern and historical, during my spare time. I have borrowed and in some cases bought a variety of books on the topic. I have read news articles, watched videos and documentaries, even found a few journal articles that were available for free, and even attended a free online anti-slavery course from the University of Nottingham. I cannot provide a complete listing of every reference I have reviewed over that time period, especially given how long it takes to fill out the little template thing in the UI, but if you scroll above, you can see that I have listed a number which are relevant to the question at hand. I will copy-paste it below to make it easier to find. In fact, I think it would be nice if it had it's own section on my talk page, since I've been trying to add more things to it a bit at a time, but the UI is confusing and I'm more interested in looking over my books and things than in figuring the UI out. In any case, if you actually want to talk about references, please talk about the ones provided instead of simply linking to pages talking generically about references. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Additionally, I checked the nearest reference to the statement "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery", and, within the pages listed by whomever added the reference (God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795, pp 126–131, 185), the only mention of slavery involves Tartar war parties raiding Poland. It would seem that the reference is intended to support other material, and not that particular statement. The denialist opinion that "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery" is either someone's personal viewpoint, or else in a reference not listed, or else in a reference that was removed from the page at some point in the past. Ashy Waves (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(Repost), I do not see how that second link is applicable (and as for the first, I shall try to return to that later, or bit by bit), but I can see how you might need some explanation of why I do not see how it is applicable, especially if you have not been following the details of the dispute. To quote what you linked, "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [list of examples] on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."

I made sure that inserting references was one of the first Wikipedia formatting thingies I learned how to use, and even before I figured out the formatting of references, I still included references, albeit incorrectly formatted ones. Take, for example, the Global Slavery Index. If you go to this page, you can see a listing of experts who have contributed to the Global Slavery Index, along with brief explanations of their qualifications.

If you search Google News for "Global Slavery Index", you can see that a wide variety of news sources consider the Global Slavery Index to be a website worth citing. Google News returns about 4,510 results. Here are just a few examples.

Some things citing the Global Slavery Index and specifically mentioning Poland.

I believe this establishes that the Global Slavery Index is well-regarded by a variety of news agencies, and that I am not simply doing "Advertising, marketing or public relations" for an insignificant website, but I can continue providing more examples if those are insufficient.

The US Department of State produces an annual Trafficking in Person report, which includes information about many countries.

As for the topic of modern slavery more broadly, and not simply estimates of the numbers, there are many books, news articles, documentaries, and videos on the subject.

Some of the books about modern slavery in my collection are:

This is by no means a complete listing of books available on modern slavery. Further examples can be provided if needed.

A wide variety of news sources discuss modern slavery. For example, the CNN Freedom Project focuses on the topic of modern day slavery.

Al Jazeera has published a series of videos on the topic of modern slavery.

A section of The Guardian's website focuses on slavery.

BBC also has a section focusing on slavery.

The New York Times has a section on human trafficking.

There are a number of videos and documentaries about modern slavery.

Journal articles

Not done providing examples of the abundant published information about modern slavery available, but going away from my computer for awhile and wish to save my progress.

In any case, a number of people around here apparently feel that the topic of the suffering of these people simply isn't important, regardless of the number of references offered. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Updated Ashy Waves (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues leading to block
No one is disputing the existence of modern slavery. The primary issues at hand are WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOAPBOX, and Tendentious_editing. In Mauritania, the pervasiveness and magnitude of modern slavery means having a section on slavery (and sub-article, Slavery in Mauritania) reasonable. For countries like Poland, the consensus is that it's not reasonable given the relative magnitude. Note that if you continue to edit war against consensus after this block, the next block will be for a longer duration. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "No one is disputing the existence of modern slavery." Reply: This is in fact in dispute. The current version of the Poland article states, "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery" I checked the nearest available reference provided, and found nothing to suggest that said reference holds that viewpoint. All it had to say about slavery, on the page numbers listed in the reference, involved Tartar war parties raiding Poland.

2. The WEIGHT webpage states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The current version of the Poland article does not meet this standard. It's gives great credence to a denialist viewpoint that is not even included in the nearest reference, and mentions nowhere the far more widely held viewpoint (as established by above list of references) that Poland does in fact have a modern slavery problem.

3. Regarding the list on SOAPBOX, the first does not apply. I did not write something in the Poland article expressing my own opinions, e.g. a moral or emotional judgement regarding Poland's progress combating. I simply added referenced material about the estimated prevalence of slavery in Poland along with some other details. The second also does not apply because again, I did not add by own personal opinions to the article. The third does not apply, because I did not include anything "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Everything was referenced. Four does not apply, because I added nothing about myself. There was no self-promotion. The extensive list of news sources and others should be sufficient to prove that five does not apply either. The Global Slavery Index is a well-regarded source of information for many organizations. I was not advertising, marketing or doing public relations for them: they are simply a very reputable source of information. Therefore, SOAPBOX has no bearing on my edits.

4. The thing about Righting great wrongs states. "Wikipedia is a popular site and its articles often appear high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that's not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [list of examples} on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them." Again, the list of references I have provided is relevant to this. The wrongs in question have been reported by numerous mainstream media sources and published in a variety of books, not to mention journals, videos, and documentaries. The information I added was not original though nor original research.

In short, the webpages you link to support my view that the Poland article is currently not up to standards. They do not support your accusations. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of references you list here has no bearing on the discussion. If you resume editing against consensus, you will be blocked again for a longer duration. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

, the references, their number and their quality has everything to do with this discussion. The three things you linked to all talk extensively about the importance of references. To link to pages discussing the importance of references, when you apparently do not care at all about references, is incredibly hypocritical. As for consensus, there is no consensus, nor will it ever be possible to reach a consensus with someone who links pages about the importance of references even when he himself does not care about references. That you seem to believe there is a consensus seems to imply that you do not believe I am a person. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to give you helpful advice so you can avoid being blocked again. I'll leave you with one more: Disruptive_editing. It's only two paragraphs, and summarizes this situation well: Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

, You've haven't given helpful advice. You've linked pages you yourself do not believe in. You link pages about the importance of references, and now you seem to be implying that you consider looking at references to be a waste of time. That simply makes you a hypocrite. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: It turns out that my initial impression of why I was blocked is incorrect. Based on EdJohnston's comment below, "Ashy Waves is reluctant to concede there was anything wrong with their edits", I can see that the block was not about the disputes over editing (rather melodramatically referred to as "edit warring" under the local idiom), nor about any confusion I had over customs regarding resolving such disputes, but rather because he believed I was wrong to make the changes I made in the first place, presumably because he believes that slavery is an unimportant topic, and, furthermore, he sees blocking people as the correct way to convince them that slavery is unimportant, or at the very least, convince them to pretend that slavery is unimportant. Since I will never consider slavery unimportant, and I am unwilling to pretend that slavery is unimportant, EdJohnston's concerns will never be addressed. The suffering of tens of millions of people is important, numerous new agencies, books, and journals agree that it is important, and I will not pretend otherwise. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) I am moving the comment you added into a declined block request out of that request and placing it below. Changing the content of a message (in this case an unblock request) after another person has responded to it changes the context of the response, and therefore gives a misleading impression of what the other person's response was referring to. Of course anyone who checks and compares all the dates of all the messages will be able to work out the sequence of comments, but of course nobody will do that in the course of reading the page.
 * 2) Please stop misrepresenting what other people say. To give just one example of many, neither EdJohnston nor anybody else has said that slavery is unimportant.
 * 3) You have evidently come to Wikipedia in order to try to publicise an issue which you feel is important and which you feel does not get enough publicity. However, Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of giving greater publicity to issues than is given to them in existing publications no matter how noble and valid the belief that they should get more coverage may be, and so it is not the right place for you to carry on your campaign to publicise that issue.
 * 4) You are perfectly welcome to edit Wikipedia in line with policies and guidelines, but not to persist in a one-person campaign to override those policies and guidelines because you think your opinions are more valid than those of everybody who disagrees with you. We all think our opinions are correct, but those of us who are willing to accept that in a collaborative project we often have to accept a view that we don't share in the long run actually finish up giving more input into Wikipedia than those who try to uncompromisingly insist on their own views. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

, as I have repeatedly made clear, and as should be obvious from the extensive list of references provided above, my contention is NOT that slavery doesn't get enough publicity in general, my contention is that slavery gets a great deal of publicity and that Wikipedia, unlike numerous news agencies, books, journals, etc., chooses to neglect the issue. For you to continue to assert that I am trying to give the issue greater publicity than it is given in existing publications, without so much as engaging in any commentary about the publications I have listed, demonstrates an extreme disregard for the truth on your part. Additionally, a number of people have made comments which make it clear they believe slavery is unimportant. Here follow exact quotes with commentary. NeonFor, "Short section about most important topic of polish economy and you are putting there an info about... slavery?" NeonFor, "there is no country in this world which have completly free economy. and you are totally wrong about the importance of this small almost non-existing factor." NeonFor engaged in no discussion about quality or number of references. Nearly one in 200 people in Poland are enslaved according to the Global Slavery Index, but according to NeonFor this is a "small almost non-existing factor". Moxy, "I have to agree that the information in not relevant for country articles." Moxy, so far as I can tell, has not engaged in discussion about the quality or number of references either, although he has been invited to do so. OhNoitsJamie, "For countries like Poland, the consensus is that it's not reasonable given the relative magnitude." Also OhNoitsJame, "The number of references you list here has no bearing on the discussion." So he doesn't care about the references, just his personal opinion that it doesn't have enough magnitude to be important. EdJohnston, "Ashy Waves is reluctant to concede there was anything wrong with their edits." This makes it clear that EdJohston considers the original edits themselves a blockable offense, not merely my failure to follow procedures of which I was unaware in the following dispute. The policies and guidelines are rather meaningless when no one follows them. None of the people I just quoted care about references, nor do you apparently. People are quick to declare, without any supporting evidence, that the topic is not well-covered in existing publications, but there is a distinct lack of people who genuinely care about references enough to actually look at them. Since my references are being repeatedly ignored, I am reposting them below. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(Repost)

Take, for example, the Global Slavery Index. If you go to this page, you can see a listing of experts who have contributed to the Global Slavery Index, along with brief explanations of their qualifications.

If you search Google News for "Global Slavery Index", you can see that a wide variety of news sources consider the Global Slavery Index to be a website worth citing. Google News returns about 4,510 results. Here are just a few examples.

Some things citing the Global Slavery Index and specifically mentioning Poland.

I believe this establishes that the Global Slavery Index is well-regarded by a variety of news agencies, and that I am not simply doing "Advertising, marketing or public relations" for an insignificant website, but I can continue providing more examples if those are insufficient.

The US Department of State produces an annual Trafficking in Person report, which includes information about many countries.

As for the topic of modern slavery more broadly, and not simply estimates of the numbers, there are many books, news articles, documentaries, and videos on the subject.

Some of the books about modern slavery in my collection are:

This is by no means a complete listing of books available on modern slavery. Further examples can be provided if needed.

A wide variety of news sources discuss modern slavery. For example, the CNN Freedom Project focuses on the topic of modern day slavery.

Al Jazeera has published a series of videos on the topic of modern slavery.

A section of The Guardian's website focuses on slavery.

BBC also has a section focusing on slavery.

The New York Times has a section on human trafficking.

There are a number of videos and documentaries about modern slavery.

Journal articles

Not done providing examples of the abundant published information about modern slavery available, but going away from my computer for awhile and wish to save my progress.

In any case, a number of people around here apparently feel that the topic of the suffering of these people simply isn't important, regardless of the number of references offered. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Updated Ashy Waves (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that there were a couple of inaccuracies in what I said. Thank you for correcting them. However, those details do not detract from the overall thrust of what has been said to you by a number of editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

, thank you for acknowledging that there were some inaccuracies in your previous statement. That actually does help me to feel somewhat better. However, I really do feel the references are important. I can do nothing to change people's personal opinions regarding the importance of slavery, or lack thereof, but I reject the accusations that the data I have been attempting to add is not well-supported, both in accuracy and importance, by a wide variety of references to material outside of Wikipedia. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I totally agree that it is important, and I also think that it is not given as much attention as it should be. It seems to me, though, that the main bone of contention is whether the amount of importance given to it in specific articles is disproportionate. For example, before posting my message above I looked at your recent editing at Lever Brothers. I think that making a mention of the forced labour issue in the article is a good idea. However, the section on that consists of over 900 words in an article of 1600 and odd words. In fact it accounts for about 55% of the word count of the article, not counting the references and "see also" sections. While I certainly agree, as I have already said, that the topic is important and is worth mentioning, I don't see this one aspect of the history of the company justifies being given more coverage than the whole of the rest of the subject put together. Ideally, I would go through all of what you have written, carefully weighing each detail and deciding what to take out and what to leave in, and cut it down to a much smaller proportion of the size of the whole article. However, that would take more time and effort than I am willing to put into this one aspect of this one article, which leaves me with three options: take the whole lot out, fairly arbitrarily take out some substantial chunks without really being sure how well balanced the result is, or leave it all in. I decided to do the third of those, but it does leave a result which I am far from happy with, and it will not surprise me at all if someone else comes along and decides to take the first option. You actually stand a much better chance of keeping enough of your content in the article to substantially make the point if you settle for a few main points rather than trying to put everything relevant in. Whatever your own sincerely held belief may be, most editors will think that giving more than half the article to this one issue is disproportionate, so the likelihood of someone removing much or all of it is high. Similar remarks apply to other articles you have edited.
 * Just two more pieces of advice, and then I will leave this.
 * Avoid imputing bad motives to other editors. Obviously in a project where anyone can come along and contribute, we get all kinds of people, including some who behave dishonestly or maliciously. However, the overwhelming majority of people who choose to give up a significant part of their free time to contributing unpaid work here do so in good faith, and editors who are seen to be accusing others of bad faith are likely to be perceived as unconstructive, which is likely to lead to their views not being listened to as sympathetically as would otherwise be the case. I therefore advise you not to accuse others of doing things for ulterior motives without very convincing evidence.
 * Remember that we are all volunteers. You have evidently put a very large amount of work into the one issue you have chosen to dedicate your work to, including the considerable amount of time and work you have put into writing the messages that you have posted to this page. However, for other editors this is just one issue out of many that they deal with, and it is unlikely that anyone will be willing to put in the time that is required to read all of the what is posted to this page. (It amounts to over 13000 words.) You will actually convey more of what you are trying to say to other editors if you give a brief summary of the main points, rather than trying to say everything that seems relevant. I am honestly saying this in a spirit of offering you advice which I hope may be helpful, not in a spirit of criticism, because I know full well that I myself have a tendency to write too much, and I have to make an effort to hold back from saying everything relevant that I can think of.
 * OK, that's it for now. I hope some of what I have said may be of some help to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The book Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts is 223 pages long, not included the pages of notes and references, and it is an abridged version of the French language original. It is difficult to summarize because of how it is written. Jules Marchal shows much more than he tells. There are other references which confirm the use of forced labour by the HCB/Lever Brothers, and I have added some of them to the article after someone (possibly you) put a little box thingy on the article asking for more references, but I consider Lord Leverhulme's Ghost to be the highest quality reference that I have access to and is actually in English. Jules Marchal provides a rather extensive list of his own sources, but many of them are buried in archives at Brussels and/or written in French and/or difficult to find for some other reason. He does, however, quote sizeable passages from his sources, so I do not feel severely disadvantaged from not being able to track them all down myself.

One of the pages people keep linking states that, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this." Jules Marchal is sparing with his own opinions, but he presents large amounts of data from which people can draw their own conclusions. Summarizing this data to get the point across is more or less what I've been trying to do, but it requires a lot more words. It would be quick and easy to say, "The HCB treated their slaves with extreme cruelty," but this would violate the webpage people keep linking to. Instead, providing people with a series of facts from which they can judge for themselves the HCB's level of cruelty would seem to be consistent with the aformentioned policy quotation, but it requires far more words.

Also, I think you might be confused, and may have done the second option, "fairly arbitrarily take out some substantial chunks without really being sure how well balanced the result is", and simply typed third by mistake. Either that, or I am confused, and someone else (not you) took the second option. However, there is a fourth option you didn't mention. I have seem some articles contain a summary of a given topic, but at the top of the summary there is a little thingy saying Main article: X, so anyone who wants to know more about X can click on the link and find everything there (so for example: Main article: Use of forced labour by Lever Brothers, or better yet, Main article: Use of forced labour in the Congo by Lever Brothers and their competitors). That still doesn't get around the problem of the difficulty of summarizing the book, but it would offer a way to shorten the main article while still making the information easily available to anyone who cares enough to click a link. I do not actually know how to use Wikipedia well enough to figure out how to do this, though, and I expect that even if I did, I would be blocked for "reverting" the efforts of whomever arbitrarily shortened the article.

Minimisation is a form of denial, and denial is considered one of the stages of grief, and I'm not sure that someone who is in denial can be considered to be acting in bad faith, per se. It's really a philosophical question, I guess. But it is extremely frustrating to talk to people going through denial, and I do wish that people had some other way of coping with it.

Ashy Waves (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Stop spamming your proposed content all over the place and read WP:CANVASS. Also, do not create RFCs with invalid opening statements. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for at least verifying that my concerns that I might be blocked soon just for disagreeing with people on talk pages. The reason I was in such a hurry to create and RFC without really understanding the correct procedure (and I am still fairly sure I don't completely understand) was for precisely that reason: because I was afraid if I didn't create it fast I would be blocked before I even had the chance to try to talk to someone who actually cares about references. As I have stated previously, I will not pretend to agree with all these people who do not care about references and do not think that slavery and forced labour are important topics. If I was "canvassing" (and I am not completely sure I understand that page to be sure whether I was or not, so this is not an admission), then it was because I want to talk to someone who is willing to engage in real conversation about whether my references are adequate to back up my changes, and whether I summarized the references appropriately, rather than people who just tell me the references are unimportant. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain balance to you one last time. We have many topics that we cover in detail in sub articles that are not discussed in main overview articles because they would be jammed with ever social wrong. We generally dont list stats for Rapes, Murders, Addicts, Homelessness, Suicides, Car accidents, Slaves, numbers of those incarcerated etc.... if that country is not recognized as having a serious problem with them......why because ALL countries have theses problems. This could and should be mentioned if its statistically relevant.....Iike how the USA has the most inmates per capita or how India has a large rape problem. But to add huge chunks of quotes in giant paragraphs  is simply overwhelming  and not what we are looking for.--Moxy (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, and than you for coming to talk to me on my talk page since it is the only page I am still able to edit. I was trying to respond to you on the Belgian Congo talk page when I was blocked. What I wanted to say was that there were not simply a few isolated incidents of slavery in the Belgian Congo. It was a forced labour regime.
 * This is from one of the webpages people keep linking. "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * I believe that an entirely separate article for Slavery in the Belgian Congo would be a POV fork. However, if the Belgian Congo article contained a summary of the topic, with a more-detailed sub-article elsewhere, I believe that would be okay. In any case, it is not like I am able to create a POV fork or a sub-article anyway, being blocked, even if I could figure out all the formatting stuff.
 * It was my intention to edit the Belgian Congo article in a sandbox, as a way of showing my intended improvements and gradually working on it at my own pace, but since I am blocked I am no longer able to edit the sandbox. I intended to try to gradually change it in accordance with Anastrophe's suggestions. I will have to move it here to my talk page instead. If you could kindly inform Anastrophe that I have been blocked and am trying to follow his or her suggestions on my talk page, I would appreciate it.
 * Ashy Waves (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also a problem ... your having problems all over the place so its hard for you to keep track of whats going on. I am taking about adding small irrelevant stats to country articles all over. I think is the best person to comment on Belgian Congo.....linking their name will alert them of this conversation. --Moxy (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not added any more slavery statistics to articles since my last block. I did intend to discuss the issue of slavery statistics on talk pages further, but did not get around to it before being blocked. I would tell you one of the key points I intended to make when discussing it on talk pages, but NeilN would probably consider it disruptive if I did that. Instead, I propose that we take this conversation somewhere else: some forum, other wiki, or e-mail where it is possible to talk without NeilN's censorship. NeilN does not own the entire internet, so there must be somewhere we can talk more freely. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * would you be willing to discuss the Lever Brothers article on some forum, wiki, or e-mail elsewhere on the internet where NeilN can't censor us? Ashy Waves (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will only discuss such Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia. The only time talk page discussions are ever "censored" is when a gross violation of policy occurs, such as unverified slander of a living person (see WP:BLP). I think the discussions necessary to improve the encyclopedia in regards to the coverage you want to add can easily be made without such policy violations. Therefore, I see no reason to take the conversation anywhere else. For the record, this suggestion can easily be interpreted as a malicious attempt to circumnavigate Wikipedia's processes and does not reflect favorably upon you.-Indy beetle (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * would you be willing to discuss the Belgian Congo article on some forum, wiki, or e-mail elsewhere on the internet where NeilN can't censor us? Ashy Waves (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not willing to do so. You are misunderstanding a lot of things, and in so doing, you are hurting your own "cause" for lack of a better term. I respect your zeal for the matter of slavery; the problem is your approach. Your desire seems clearly to be to shine a bright light on the problem of slavery - in the past and present - around the world. I applaud your interest, slavery is one of the worst impulses humans have ever acted upon, it destroys lives and cultures. So....you want to improve the encyclopedia by highlighting this problem. Great! Now - think about it: Based on your user contribution page, you've been editing on Wikipedia for less than a month. In that time, you've managed to be blocked multiple times, engaged in edit-warring, and engaged in personalized disputes on talk pages. This is the fastest way to get yourself banned from Wikipedia. So, what will be accomplished if you manage to get yourself banned? You won't even have the opportunity to try to improve Wikipedia. This is a collaborative medium. No, it is not perfectly, magnanimously democratic or free of bias and abuse. But...it is, what it is. If you cannot work within the confines of Wikipedia as it exists, then you'll effectively prevent yourself from making the encyclopedia better. That's the crux of the matter that you need to contemplate. Your actions are counter to your interests.
 * I've been on WP since 2006 (i think). I have tens of thousands of edits here. I sometimes perform random edits - meaning, I'll hit the 'random' button, look at what comes up, and see if I can improve what's there. More often than not, it's a topic I have no interest in, but I am interested in making the encyclopedia better. So I'll fix some typos, or correct some syntax and grammar, and even do a little back-research on the topic and see if I can improve the content. It can be very, very satisfying. And, it helps you build your 'chops' as an editor, helps you learn the intricacies, engage with other users from time to time, and gives a sense of accomplishment - small - but there nonetheless.
 * Now, I'm not suggesting that that is what you should resign yourself to doing here on Wikipedia! As a matter of fact, there are issues that I'm passionate about, like you. Over the years, I've been involved in many conflicts, very strong and passionate conflicts, with other editors, regarding content, how it is presented, or how it is _not_ presented as the case may be. Since 2006 (or whenever), I've been blocked a handful of times for 3RR - and that's it. I don't think I've been blocked for more than one day, ever. I don't think I've been blocked for any other violation of rules. Being blocked is maddening, but - that's the system, and you have to work within the system.
 * In your short time here, you've been sanctioned several times, and sanctioned strongly. You've been in some significant conflicts with other editors. Sure - conflicts will happen, it's inevitable on a platform that covers...everything. But one of the worst things an editor can do is impute malevolent motive to other editors. Hey, it's a natural, human reaction when one meets resistance on a matter one is passionate about. But it is the quickest way to hurt yourself, by limiting or preventing your ability to edit here.
 * I have not been party to any of the conflicts other than those on the Belgian Congo talk page, but I see that there's been conflicts on a number of other talk pages on the same matter of slavery. From my perspective - again, as an editor here for more than a decade - accusing other editors of trying to censor content regarding slavery holds virtually no water. Oh, I don't doubt that here and there, there are editors who are so partisan that they want to whitewash bad deeds, but that never survives in a collaborative, consensual medium. It is critical that you listen to what your peers are saying, and try to step back from your zeal. From what I see, the primary complaints are about adding massive amounts of content, on one specific topic, without considering the overall article. I believe one of the most recent suggestions is that you create an article on Slavery in the Belgian Congo. This is a great idea. Slavery is a topic in its own right, and one that applies to countless nations and cultures, past and present. In a focused article on that topic, the details can be presented fully. Then in the Belgian Congo article, those details can be summarized in their own section, with a pointer to the main article. This may seem like trying to hide it - but it isn't. The encyclopedia exists to provide random people on the internet information. We can't force them to be interested in a topic, or to keep reading. We have to summarize the details. No person reading the Belgian Congo article fully would come away with an impression that the country was a wonderful, peaceful, beautiful and free entity. There is no sense that the article glorifies the conditions there, nor whitewashes the horrible problems there.
 * Sigh, this has been way too long, a coffee-fueled lecture, and I need to stop here. Step back, slow down, contain your zeal, expose yourself to more on Wikipedia than just the one topic of slavery, hit the 'random' button and do some random editing, read what others say on talk pages - not just the Belgian Congo talk pages, but on the talk pages of random articles. Follow the discussions, see how others deal with conflicts. Though I've never spent time in the Tea House, I have heard that it an excellent place to come to a better understanding of how this massive 'machine' called Wikipedia works. Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Quit making copies of the article. When you're blocked you're only supposed to use your talk page to discuss unblocking but I'll allow some leeway if other editors want to discuss content and if you're not disruptive. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on your editing after your block expired I do not think your zeal and advocacy for your cause will allow you to hear what other editors are saying to you. I am therefore blocking you indefinitely. Any admin is free to lift this block without consulting me if they think this editor won't be a giant timesuck for other editors trying to explain policies and guidelines. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your block
I saw your edit over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, and I wanted to give you some advice before you got blocked indefinitely. I see I’m a bit late on that, but if you recognize your mistakes and change your behavior, I think you could convince an admin to unblock you and be a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. You wrote This seems to confirm my fears that I may be blocked soon just for disagreeing with people on talk pages. You need to understand that that's not at all what happened. Disagreement is welcome on Wikipedia. You've been blocked because of your behavior. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines regarding behavior, and you should familiarize yourself with them if you wish to continue editing. The most relevant for right now seem to be edit warring, disruptive editing (including a bit of tendentiousness), and canvassing. Before appealing your block, make sure you fully understand why you were blocked and are committed to not repeating the same mistakes. Otherwise, you won't get unblocked, or if you do, you'll soon find yourself blocked again. It might be worthwhile to check out the list of Wikipedia policies to get an idea for how things work here. And if you do get unblocked, remember there is no deadline: if you disagree with how an article is written, it's probably been that way for years, so an extra week or month of discussion before it gets changed makes very little difference in the long run. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PS You should also check out the user page policy regarding what is an appropriate use of this page. -- irn (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Since my last block, I have made very few edits to articles. Basically, I have added additional references to material which was not deleted, and I made a single attempt to add a systemic bias box to an article. Aside from that, the rest of my edits since my last block (so far as I can remember) were to talk pages, the teahouse, or a sandbox. This tells me that I was indeed blocked for disagreeing on talk pages. It doesn't matter if disagreeing on talk pages is referred to as disruptive editing, canvassing, or edit warring, it is still disagreement on talk pages. That many of the additions I have made to talk pages appear to have been either collapsed or censored would confirm that the supposedly disruptive editing in question is disagreement on talk pages. Additionally, I have been told that some of the edits I have attempted to make to my own talk page are disruptive too. Given that I don't think anything short of pretending to agree that slavery is unimportant would satisfy NeilN, which would violate my own conscience, I don't see any point in appealing the block. I would like to talk to other people who agree that it is a good idea to included appropriately referenced material, or are at least open-minded enough to consider the possibility, but since NeilN apparently intends to censor me on my own talk page, I imagine I will have to find some other forum, wiki, or e-mail to discuss the matter with interested parties. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
<div class="user-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been warned about WP:CANVASS and have certainly mentioned it enough but yet are openly advocating stealth canvassing. Talk page access revoked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)