User talk:Sleath56/Archive 1

The visual editor on Safari
Hi, I'm replying to your question, "Does the VE work on Safari?". It does, and if you're using Safari but can't see the edit tab, check that it's enabled on your account (instructions at the top of VisualEditor are up-to-date) or that you are editing an article or a user page (it's not an available option on other pages, like talk pages). Best, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Constantinople
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish on Constantinople, though. The tags you're repeatedly removing are legitimate requests for citations. Since your edits have now been reverted three times, by two different editors, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page before doing anything else. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Coronavirus
Hi Sleath. Allow me to write this on your private page, independently of my formal edit request on the Coronavirus Wuhan outbreak article. One incidental reason why I am concerned about highlighting xenophobia in the Coronovirus outbreak article is that the stereotype is reinforced that Chinese individuals as well as their government are more concerned about their public image ("losing face") than they are about other people dying. If you then read the cited sources it becomes even more problematic: Chinese businessmen are worried about losing money, critics are cited that the Chinese are to blame for eating wildlife, etc. Stereotype after stereotype. Given the deadly threat, I prefer to reinforce positive messages: the Chinese government have admitted their mistake and are now being pro-active, much to the relief and admiration of the outside world. I am not going to revisit your page, so please read this, delete this and do not take the trouble to reply.31.49.112.219 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your Talk as IP users can only be notified of responses there. I appreciate the overture to provide an explanation. Let me explain my view on this matter, which is that my opposition at Talk fell under procedural grounds of Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia cannot advocate, elsewise my first edits would be to add a new header linking to the donation page for the Red Cross for every humanitarian disaster such as this. The point of order I've stated on the merits of retention is that Wikipedia reports what WP:Reliable Sources report. A large number of those RS cover this issue and as such they merit inclusion, simple as that.


 * On a off-topic note, I think you can rest assured the coverage of these incidents are unanimously cast with sympathy and opposition to the unjust and maligned incidents. Its coverage on this page has been praised by a news article that covered this Wikipedia page: "Professor Nadav Davidovitch, director of the School of Public Health at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, says he is “pleasantly surprised by the quality of the content of the [main Wikipedia] article on the coronavirus ... It also provides good social criticism – discussing how racism has helped fuel the story, like was the case with the SARS virus." I hope this clarified the matter. Sleath56 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - glad the move has finally gone through
Hey Sleath, I just wanted to say a big thank you (well, to everyone that stayed on the ball really, but I felt that you were out there taking a lot of flak), and that I'm really glad the coronavirus outbreak move has finally gone through :D! I did see that you'd pinged me, but I really don't have much energy for the procedural / conflictual side of things here, else I might have chimed in (it did feel a bit like I was leaving you out in the rain a bit though, so I was sorry about that). My making the point / a ruckus that the article shouldn't have been left at its old title for so long was exerting myself far more than I'd usually be willing to already :P.

Well, happy that things have finally turned out right, and might now actually get on / back to editing the article itself :P. Regards, and all the best, Sean Heron (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, appreciate the thanks!
 * No problem, I was just helping out what I felt as well was a proper move and if I managed to direct the heat away from the other proponents in the meanwhile, then all the better haha. Good on you for making the MR, we were able to move forward the RM two days earlier thanks to the discussions opened there. Glad we were able to finally establish consensus on this and let people move on to do more constructive editing. Best, Sleath56 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Your recent editing history at 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to calm down the impasse if you could also provide this reminder to the other participant as well. Sleath56 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'm currently in the process of reviewing the page history, and fully intend to provide the same notice to other editors who weren't following WP:BRD. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that. Feel free to decline if this request is inappropriate, but if you have the time, would you be willing to take a quick glance at the DRN opened on this matter and possibly weigh in your thoughts (on here)? It's just been me and the other editor throughout so we've obviously both been stuck in our grounds, and the moderator seems rather busy to comment in their stance. A previous DDR/3 went unadopted and I had opened the DRN in hopes to get a third opinion. All I would really just like is an 3O to weigh in if the concerns I hold have merit, if they don't, I'd be perfectly willing to close my end of the dispute. Sleath56 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got a pretty busy day ahead of me today, but I'll try to read through as much of it as I can if I can spare a bit of time and try to help mediate things if you still find yourself at an impasse. I haven't edited much beyond copy-editing wherever I can, so I'd like to think I'm neutral enough to provide a neutral opinion. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mind taking a look at this discussion? 1. Best. Sleath56 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your editing on 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak
You may be trying to edit collaboratively, but the end result is that you are making it very hard for other editors and you to work together to improve the article.

You started a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread a little more than two weeks ago, and I began to try to moderate the discussion. All of the versions of rules that I have used say to be civil and concise. You have not been concise. I have been patient. Perhaps I have been too patient, because I was allowing back-and-forth discussion that was civil but unproductive. I have always stressed the need to be concise, except when I was allowing back-and-forth. So then I asked for one-paragraph summaries, and you provided a complaint about section bloat, while the other editor called for an all-inclusive article, neither of which was specific. So then I again asked to identify three specific sections to be improved, and again said to comment on content, not contributors. The back-and-forth and criticism of the other editor continued, and I had to collapse it twice. So then I failed the discussion, and said that perhaps the least wrong way was to go to WP:ANI. At this point you posted to the DRN talk page, which was a reasonable place to post, saying that you took issue with the closure and continued to hope that moderation would be able to resolve the dispute without WP:ANI. I re-opened the discussion and asked both parties to respond, again. The other editor has responded. You have not responded within 48 hours after I re-opened the dispute. However, I see that you have been editing the article, and that you have been editing the article with sufficient persistence that you have been (rightly or wrongly) cautioned for edit-warring. The other editor, User:FobTown, has replied to my re-opening. You have edited the article, but have not replied to my statement.

Do you want moderated discussion, or have you decided to go back to just editing the article? If you have decided that you are no longer taking part in moderated discussion, you should have the courtesy to let me know that you are willing to have the case closed (after you complained about its closure) again. As it is, it appears that you are trying to interfere with collaborative editing, by trying to use moderated discussion as a convenient way to get the moderator to agree with you, but then ignoring the moderator. That is probably not your intention, but it is the appearance. So please either reply to my sixth statement, or state that you prefer to discuss matters on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you've contacted me. Let me provide my view on the matter, which is that the point of the DRN was to solicit a third opinion. That's it. I've appreciated that you've attempted to direct and manage the discussion for us two to attempt to talk, but the real intent of the DRN being opened in my eyes was for a third editor to weigh in on the arguments being made. Is this an unorthodox aspiration on what should result from a DRN?
 * I'll be frank that bothering DRN for this was not my first choice: 1) I've tried to do this on the Talk page, but there were no third participants even though the incredible length of the Talk discussion made it clearly visible for everyone, 2 I've tried to open a DDR3 but no one picked it up. Guidelines have been cited throughout by both sides and the hope was for a third person to provide their view on if citing those guideline concerns were appropriate. Obviously the other editor disagrees they are valid, and obviously as I continually have brought them up I feel they are. The other editor and I have been talking for an entire month now, and I think it's fair to say for both our sakes that bilateral dialogue is completely unproductive. I've furthered the DRN discussion to six different renditions in hopes that an observer could just chip in to say "Hmm, I don't think it's appropriate to cite WP:X here" as we went along.
 * Yes, I've requested the DRN to be re-opened, but the intent was for the hopes as stated above to have a chance to manifest. Let me clarify that my editing of the article since the DRN closed has had nothing to do with the principle area of dispute. I haven't touched that part. On the other hand, the appropriateness to cite some hypocrisy in my part is due and accepted, but I'd just say that it's a result of discussion going on for half a month without any observer input and because the article of the DRN is an ongoing heavily edited page, full non-participation is rather unfair a restraint if it isn't going to be reciprocated. If the dispute was about an idle article, I wouldn't have touched it since the DRN opened. Let me clarify that DRNA has never been followed from the start, and this is not just in regards to myself. I've given several appeals to respect DRNA, which have been rejected by the other participant. Additionally, there is absolute reciprocity in continued editing of the page. To say I haven't respected the DRN process, or that the other participant has held more restraint is inaccurate in my view.


 * Appeals made:12 3
 * The response of which has been: 4, and the accusation of "using DRN as a stalling process".


 * I've left the disputed section alone. It is severely bloated, the largest section on the page, and I view it's inevitable someone else would come to trim it. On the contrary, my successive edits have had collaborative rapport by third-party editors, which is why I haven't brought it to DRN. If the aspiration that moderation could at last weigh in on the dispute (I frankly don't care for the implication that an appeal for judgment is an appeal for it in my favour), I will absolutely be invested in progressing the discussion there, within whichever parameters to follow as moderation sees fit. Sleath56 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New message from Acalycine
Please see proposal by Ohconfucius - seeking your thoughts and consensus on this issue. Acalycine (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2020 (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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)