User talk:Simonm223/Archive 6

BLP concerns
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please be aware of the warning I have posted to all editors at this thread about Zak Smith. I am deeply concerned that you appear to have inserted or re-inserted serious allegations against him based purely on Facebook posts and personal blogs, in contravention of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RS. You cannot do this until such time as reliable news media have covered any such allegations, and you risk having sanctions taken against you if you do. Sorry to come down hard like this, but this is a serious matter which could bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and which could even expose WMF and individual editors to legal challenges if unsubstantiated. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately have to agree with Nick Moyes and the warning he left here. The content restored was a very serious violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Please be mindful and review content carefully when restoring it to a BLP article - especially content in this nature, that make serious allegations and accusations about the article subject. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pushback.
Simonm223, you were pushing back pretty hard (but civilly) on Dlthewave's talk page. I don't agree with you but I appreciate the counter point. What I think I'm hearing is the conversation is worth having but would also need more community input. Do you have thoughts on what would be a good forum for such a discussion? Springee (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR
No template, but you're aware of this of course. It doesn't matter if I think you're right or not: yours was clearly a contentious edit, it was challenged, so you need to gain a consensus on the talk page: not to edit war over the material. —— SerialNumber  54129  14:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm just tired of Wikipedia being used as a platform for racist nonsense like in this article. What's more, the nonsense is spreading with similar articles and even more egregious constructions being created about other countries. It is disgusting and I'm at the end of my patience for coddling racists. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing reliably sourced info during AfD
Please do not remove significant, reliably sourced content from pages, as you did here:, and here:. this behavior is especially problematic when as in this case, the article is at AfD and you are arguing for deletion: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No Nazis
Hi Simonm223--I'd like to move this discussion to your page as it's not really relevant to CIS. Are you alleging that I'm in any way a Nazi or a White Supremacist because of my vote on the Center for Immigration Studies RfC and subsequent edits? As a trans WoC whose family was victimized by the Nazis, I take that kind of accusation incredibly seriously, and would really encourage you to WP:AGF.There may well be some Nazis on this site who challenge the splc because they simply don't like its work. I am not one of those people, and that's quite a mischaracterization of my arguments on the CIS page. I'd appreciate clearing this up. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm saying something about you specifically I'll say it directly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gender bias is a serious issue on wikipedia, especially for trans women. I certainly face more discrimination when I edit by people who do not see my identity as legitimate. If I jumped the trigger I apologize, but your comment came right after my suggestions on the talk page. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my comments were not pointed at you; they were general comments regarding what I see as an ongoing trend with this article, and many others to do with immigration on Wikipedia. Specifically, in this case, my concern with the ongoing attempts to exclude the SPLC is that they seem tendentious as the Wikipedia community keeps having these discussions in multiple venues and even though the universal result of these discussions is that the SPLC is a reliable source with accreditation, and that their opinion, as experts in this field is preeminently WP:DUE, the fact of the matter is that the continued attempts to exclude references to the SPLC seem like attempts at bureaucratic gamesmanship in defense of a nativist hate group. I take it that is not the locus of your concern with regard to this source, but it is mine. I will note, that as my family includes immigrants and as I have many friends who are either refugees or people who have come to Canada on immigrant visas, issues of bigotry toward immigrant communities are something of a hot button for me, on top of the abject disgust I feel toward bigots to begin with. That disgust certainly includes disgust towards misogynists and trans-misogynists who I see as just as toxic as any other bigot. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. You certainly seem to be coming at the issue from a place of good faith, and I appreciate your explanation. It is not my attempt to whitewash nativism, and in fact I added a reference to nativist links to the lede originally. Regardless of our disagreement, I thank you for clarifying. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, if I think an editor is explicitly supporting white supremacist positions, and I intend to call them out on that, I don't mince words about it. My recent edit history at WP:AN/I should provide some elucidating examples. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great to hear. You're a good ally. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOUND
Please avoid WP:HOUNDING me. We have a content dispute. There is no need to take it to other articles. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at your edit history and saw a single edit outside of our dispute I disagreed with. That's hardly hounding. Go away. Simonm223 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
This message is a follow up to the response I gave in my talk page as well as a response in the Hugo Chávez one. I never said I assumed you assumed you knew my watchlist, of course I know I'm the only person I can see it, I was only explaining the reason for my edits. Despite that the IP in question has received five consecutive warnings in the past for disruptive editing and NPOV violations, not only you have accused me of being a SPA and of WP:NOTHERE, which isn't precisely civil, but now argue that I need to get used to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, even though, as I explained in a edit summary, tomorrow I will have been editing in the encyclopedia for five years now. I ask you in the future to be civil, assume good faith and address the content in dispute per se, instead of what now growingly seem like personal attacks. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon, you may want to consider toning down your approach a notch or two. I don't remember why I had your talk page watchlisted, but it keeps popping up with apparently unrelated people taking issue with your approach coming off as overly aggressive.  G M G  talk  22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)