User talk:BlueSingularity

US Nickel
Hi! The reason I reverted your change was because 1) I don't know that it's a natural progression for someone to go from the US nickel to the Canadian one (which is what I see the "See Also" section being for), and 2) If a link to the Canadian 5 cent coin is a reasonable one, where does that line get drawn? Is the British 5p a valid link? What about the 5 Eurocent coin?

I'm not going to fight you over this, but I did want you to know my train of thought. Almostfm (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dec 21
And you will get nowhere soapboxing about how leftist we all are. YOu are experienced enough to know our policies about wp:rs and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is such an extreme case of bias and double standards that it doesn't matter how leftist you all are or whether I'm "soapboxing" about it. That's all secondary to the substantive issue of how leftists were allowed to hijack the article. It will be an interesting case study. BlueSingularity (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but the article talk page is not (and you are experienced enough to know this) the place to make that case. Either report it to ani, or arbcom or make a case as wp:npov. But do not use wp:pa style attacks on other users at an article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not making personal attacks, and my edit was quickly reverted with a note to use the Talk page. This is an absurdly unethical article and I'm not going to be silent about it. We need much higher standards than this. BlueSingularity (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per wp:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing." so yes " That's all secondary to the substantive issue of how leftists were allowed to hijack the article." is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure what you're referring to. Are you seeing statements about individuals? It's awkward that you're citing the principle of ad hominem in the context of an article that is saturated with ad hominem and worse. If we were serious about ad hominem, wouldn't we have to delete the Parler article and start over with non-political writers? Are you in favor of holding leftists up to the same standards here? The use of words can't itself be ad hominem – descriptors like "leftist" aren't ad hominem. They're just descriptors. Leftists don't deserve special treatment – it's an ideology like any other ideology.BlueSingularity (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * wp:npa applies to how you treat users here, not how we write articles. And yes I have told people you call leftists to not make PA's as well. And you did not just describe them as leftists, you ascribed intent as well, you used it to dismiss their opinions (as you are still doing). We go with what RS say, if you have any RS that dispute what the article says prod8uce them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And can you please read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You also need to read wp:v and wp:or, material has to be supported by wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This interface is too insanely bad to use, so I'm not going to deal with it much longer. I don't know what you're referring to about sources, what article or entry. I haven't added any sources to anything, or removed any lately. In any case, leftist websites aren't actually reliable sources for anything political. Wikipedia doesn't have any serious standards to establish "reliable sources" – there are no audits or objective evaluations of any source to determine anything about their reliability. People talk about whether a source checks facts, but Wikipedia doesn't actually vet that. It's more rumor-based, just a belief that this or that source checks facts without any real checking. That's not a serious epistemic framework. And when we and other research teams prove how unreliable some outlet is over the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see what the activists here do about it, whether they agree to stop using that source. Wikipedia will probably end up formally flagged as a partisan outlet by various third parties, as it should be. It's absurdly biased, somewhat worse than a normal leftist outlet. It's a cartoon.BlueSingularity (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am saying that to make a change you need a wp:rs that support the change. If you go to talk pages and demand changes that are not backed up by RS you will not get any traction. Also you are edit warring to add content that violates wp:or [] You need a source that says "Fewer than 1% of Parler users are reported to be conspiracy theorists". You have also removed sourced content [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you guys are just rigging it, and not allowing anyone to actually report the data, the facts. "Significant" isn't a fact – it's an opinion, and probably an indefensible one in these <1% scenarios. That's just leftist bias, and an unusually vivid case study for it. No one would ever agree that we could say "significant" about any group when it's less than 1%, not before this, or detached from this. The article is just a hit piece being censored by partisans, not an encyclopedia article. No one needs to literally say less than 1% if their data already says less than 1% – you guys are just creating new categories of bias and rigging. We don't need third parties to duplicate the validity of arithmetic, and if we got the ADL to update their article with the percentages in addition to the raw counts, there's no way in the world that you guys would let anyone report that, right? It would be censored. The bias here is far too extreme to pretend that it's anything else. This is just vanilla political bias, but somewhat more cartoonish than we normally see. It would be amazing to write the same paragraph as the intro for Twitter, FB, just flipped to left-* this and that – it would be just as true, probably more true. And just use the mirror image sleazy tactics all over Wikipedia. You wouldn't tolerate any of that for a second. It would all be reverted, and only non-leftists would be accused of "edit-warring". This is an appallingly unethical situation. You guys need to understand that your ideology is not a valid substitute for descriptive reality.BlueSingularity (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then find a source (not your own wp:or) that supports your text.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's goofy. *You* should find a source that supports your text. Let's start there. You'll run aground immediately, since your text can't actually be supported, since it's a weasel opinion wording of "significant". And for all the things you guys lumped together in that sentence, including "far-right", etc. Every one of your smuggled labels should be supported with data. I you don't have any data, then delete it altogether. Right? BlueSingularity (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is sourced to 4 sources, in just that one line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now obey our policies and make a case at talk. I am done here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Your recent editing history at Parler shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2021 (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. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did by making 8 reverts in a 24 hour period at Parler. 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:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Once your block has expired, you should participate here: Talk:Parler. -- Valjean (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)