User talk:R3N13R

Polices
Please read wp:or, wp:rs and wp:npov. Your recent edit makes a claim someone said something they did not (see wp:blp), in fact the source about then says it (the subject did not).Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see wp:talk, new topics or posts are placed beneath existing ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you for the help - which line are you referring to? You reverted the entire contribution R3N13R (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * More or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit, for a start. Also wp:lede should be read, the lede is only for a summery of the important points of the article, it is not a newspaper like leader. Also in places your wording seems to say things your sources do not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Quite a claim you make there sir. To say the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Bishop of Truro are dubious sources - what do you base your claim on?
 * They are not the only source you used. Nor is a source an RS for its own independence. As I said on the talk page, there are too many issues for a simplistic analysis. What may apply to one part may not apply to another.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please slow down sir. You made a claim. I care to remind you. Your claim was and I quote "more or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit". Now please substantiate your claim of the dubious nature of the first 2 subjects the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro and also the report. Once you have done that to my satisfaction Slatersteven we can move on to your further claims.
 * Your lede addition contained 127 words, your other paragraph contained 138 words, thus the material in body (not sourced to the UK government), in the body, made up more of your edit then the material you added to the lede. I also should point out you do not any any time source to the Bishop of Truro. Also the report does not say 128, it says 125 (nor does the report say this is the case, only that Pew have said so).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you that is much more helpful. I will correct the 128 to 125. I am not sure I understand - "you do not at any time source the Bishop of Truro". Please explain.
 * What I said, you do not source to the bishop, you use a third party host that claims to be the report. It maybe an accurate transcription, but you cannot claim it is the bishop. Oddly the article you use does link to the actual report, and not a dodgy advocacy group. Nor does correcting the error alter any of my objections. You might need to read wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven So you retract your claim about the dubious nature of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro ?
 * I never said they were, I said some of the sources you were using in all your edit were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ok so you retracted on the dubious nature of the [Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]] and the Bishop of Truro. Progress of a kind. Now, what is your claim as to the authenticity of the Bishop's report exactly? Are you claiming it it not the Bishop's report? Or are you claiming it has been altered in some way. Please elaborate.
 * How can I retract what I never said (but I will now say it, the SOS said 128, our article now says 125, both cannot be right, so which one is?). Again I do not question the veracity of the bishops report, I am saying use a better source for it, such as the original report (not a third party hosting of it). I do not know if it has been altered, we do not use questionable sources, even when they are right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you for now also retracting your claims on the authenticity of the Bishop's report. Again progress of a kind, sir. Now let us address your latest claim. Are you claiming that the Bishop's report is only a valid source if the document is hosted on a server or domain of your personal preference?
 * No I am saying we do not use questionable sources, no matter how valid their claim is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven What is the definition of a questionable source? And who decides this? R3N13R (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well one clue is when three separate users undo your addition for using dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven According to is defined as: The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work

Do you agree?


 * Yes, but youtube is not an RS, even if it is a video of an RS. The reason is because we do not know if it is unaltered. Also " authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" is the Bishop of Truro an authority on persecution?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

edit war
Read edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven So far you have only made ONE objective observation. You have not substantiated any of your other claims whatsoever. I will ask you one more time, before escalating this. Your claim: "more or less all of it, a source was used that is (at best) dubious for most of your edit". Please substantiate your claim of the dubious nature of the first 2 subjects the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Bishop of Truro and thirdly your claims as to the Authenticity of the Bishops report here:. R3N13R (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The bishop of truro is not the source, https://wecanstopthegenocide.com is. Also "more or less all of it" referred to your whole edit, not just your addition to the lede (and again, the lede is a summery of the article, not a newspaper style leader). You undid part of my revert (a third some) thus are close to violating wp:3RR. I am saying that you should use a better source then /wecanstopthegenocide.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have now beached 3RR, I suggest you self revert.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd, if an edit of yours in undone you need to make a case for it on the talk page of the article. If you cannot achieve consensus then you should drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (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) 17:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 17:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And you first act in coming of the block is to revert back to your preferred version.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

And you are back to edit warring, this really is not a good idea, PLEASE STOP.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

minor edit
Please read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Noted thank you R3N13R (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

spa
I feel wp:spa might also need a read.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven Noted thank you R3N13R (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please read wp:npa, you are not being "persecuted" and such accusations are against policy. I also strongly advise you to read wp:not and wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)