User talk:Sleetman

Manila hostage crisis
Hi, could you explain on Talk:Manila hostage crisis why you think your edit should be included? Thanks.— Chris! c / t 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have in the Talk Page. CheersSleetman (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comment.— Chris! c / t 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis
I'm writing to invite you back to a focussed discussion on Talk:Manila hostage crisis about the remark on Global Times. For now, I protected the article in the version before the edit war began. --Deryck C. 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight of Chains
Please discuss your changes on the talk page first, in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis‎
Hi, Sleetman, I hope there is no ill-feeling between you and me even though we had some disagreement.— Chris! c / t 05:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry if I appeared to be generalizing or stereotyping the Philippine country. What I meant is that any pov can be considered "true" or "untrue" in the eyes of different people. That is unfortunately true. I don't mean to offend you or anyone by saying that. Anyway, thanks for talking civilly.— Chris! c / t 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can i help?
Hello Sleetman i have noticed that many of  your edits are being revert. Reading over Neutral point of view may help in editing style - thus helping to save your edits from being reverted. Editions like this will most likely be revert for its bias tone and/or attempt at political criticism in the opening sentence of the article. If you have any questions at all pls ask i am more then willing to help - bellow are links you may find usefull. Moxy (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia policies and guidelines Essays on building Wikipedia


 * Sorry things are not working out for you - i see that the reverts to some of your additions are due to the use of  blogs and forum as  references. Would be best to read over Identifying reliable sources and  WP:NEWSBLOG. Again if you have any questions pls ask.Moxy (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Be carefull
So far noone has noticed - but you must be mindful of our WP:3RR.Moxy (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article York University has an edit summary that is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, you have claimed consensus for an edit when no such consensus exists. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Furthermore, you are edit-warring and in violation of the three-revert rule, which may result in the suspension of your editing privileges. User claimed consensus for adding their text when no such consensus exists. Ckatz chat spy  20:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet another warning regarding 3RR and disruptive behaviour. You need to resolve this on the talk page and achieve consensus for your edits first, rather than edit warring to insert your material. PLease review WP:3RR and WP:BOLD as well. --Ckatz chat spy  19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto Ckatz regarding your activity on the Robert Spencer (author) page, to which you added self-published blog material to address all of Robert Spencer's critics, which others correctly reverted. Your edit warring is unacceptable.  Please review the three-revert rule, or you risk your editing privileges being suspended.Jemiljan (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman, the link you provided to justify your addition of Spencer's responses to his critics, mainly culled from his own blog, are in no way acceptable, nor was there any "consensus" supporting that. Quite the contrary.  Again, please review the three-revert rule, or you risk your editing privileges being suspended.Jemiljan (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits that rely upon self-published blog references for the second time. Again, review the the standards for WP:BLP, especially the section regarding self-published materials..  Your citation of consensus reached on a different page does not even remotely apply. You must discuss it and reach consensus with editors on the relevant talk page, but even so, I don't see how it will pass WP:BLP standardsJemiljan (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP
The material you have restored was removed because it does not appear to be appropriate for a biography of a living person. Editors should not restore such material without first establishing that the sources are compliant with policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not reinsert controversial material without first establishing that it is acceptable. The WP:BLP policy clearly says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The solution to this problem is not to add more blog-sourced criticism. Your utter contempt for Wikipedia rules is troubling. Guettarda (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't added blog-sourced criticism to Armstrong's talk-page nor am I in contempt of Wikipedia rules. Consider yourself reported to AN/I for personal attacks.Sleetman (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rashard Mendenhall
You're in violation of 3RR here, an issue you should be aware of given the warnings you've recently received regarding other articles, and need to undo your violation to avoid the risk of being blocked. I am filing have filed a report at WP:3RR/N. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked (and unblocked)
When someone asks you to stop calling them a certain name (like ma'am or miss or what-have-you), it's generally considered polite to stop. When you continue to do so after several requests from other editors and are obviously trying to upset them, then it crosses the line into disruptive editing. You have been blocked for 31 hours. You may appeal this block by placing beneath this message. TN X Man 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You really are trying to be serious, aren't you? NW ( Talk ) 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am, how do you know I'm not? I can't prove it to you because at this moment I am blocked, but once I'm unblocked I'll stop calling the user ma'am/miss. Now please remove this unblock as I am currently engaged in three disputes with that user.Sleetman (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been engaged in edit warring as well. When this block expires, if you continue as you have been, the blocks will escalate in their length. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, I haven't been engaged in edit warring perhaps edit disputes but not edit warring (and if you're going to accuse me of that charge, for sake of consistency you should at least leave this same comment on Bearcat's talkpage as that user is also guilty of edit warring) I have read the rules of Wikipedia very thoroughly if i didn't I'd be accusing Bearcat of biased editing.Sleetman (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it not offensive to address a man by terms which imply that he's actually a woman, or a woman by terms which imply that she's actually a man? You might be able to get away with that as good-natured joshing between friends — but Wikipedia isn't a Friday night poker party with the gang. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, please stop jumping to conclusions. Before the block was instituted, I didn't even know you were a man, much less that you are gay/transsexual and had I known that, of course I wouldn't have called you ma'am/miss. I know gay people personally, I know people (some of my relatives) who are staunchly opposed to homosexuality and the prejudices gay's (still) face in society, one of which is that gay's are weak, sissies, etc. Sleetman (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I hadn't at any point given you any reason to assume that I was a woman. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone will check another editor's userpage before making gender assumptions — and furthermore, in your original AN/I post on this subject, before any of this "ma'am" stuff even started, you did refer to my talk page as his. So you knew perfectly well. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And I suppose I'm supposed to have been able to read your mind? I don't know you personally, so all I've got is the words you write as they lay on the page — and again, while both straight and gay guys can generally get away with calling their friends "ma'am" or "miss" or "princess" or "sister" or whatever, people on Wikipedia aren't your friends and don't owe you the benefit of the doubt if your intentions were unclear. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have to disagree here. The whole point of WP:AGF is to give people the benefit of the doubt.  I doubt that Sleetman was doing anything out of malice.  Instead, this seems to be a simple mistake that Sleetman has already learned from.  --Tathar (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, for one thing I have no idea why you're even involved in my request for an unblock as that violates administrator rules . Second, I don't care if you think I hate gays even though I know gays or that I don't get why gays take offense when people call them females despite my knowing the prejudices homosexuals face in society; you don't know me as well as I know myself. Third, actions speak louder than words so if there's the chance in blue h-e-double-hockey-sticks I continue to call you ma'am/miss you can report me to the AN/I where I'll be blocked for X number of years and you can be free to make whatever changes you want on Mulcair's and Davies's page. Sleetman (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I might have agreed with you Tathar, had Sleetman not been asked to stop what he was doing but carried on regardless -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and more than that - instead of just stopping, he actually went and reported the other guy at WP:ANI instead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
 * I still think that there could be a good reason for his actions. Some women take offense to being called "ma'am" because they feel it suggests they are older than they are.  Calling them "miss" instead is appropriate in such cases.  --Tathar (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the exchange went...
 * "Biased editing much" Pot kettle black. Ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, no. And I'm no ma'am. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pot kettle black. Biased editing much. Caught red handed. Ma'am, miss, madam. Sleetman (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Biased how? And if you call me "ma'am" one more time, I'm going to editblock you. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Biased how? Please miss (didn't call you ma'am)... [...] Sleetman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see that as anything other than a deliberate wind-up, myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I did that, but that in my opinion was totally justified as he threatened me with an editblock. If he had told me about his sexual orientation, then I wouldn't have made that taunt. Sleetman (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that that is an EDITED version of the exchange; you're missing the beginning part where he fired the opening salvo by accusing me of "Biased "give me my way or else I'm going to whine to the principal" editing much?" Not that that helps to create sympathy for the other side. Sleetman (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read that conversation rather differently. The first time Bearcat specifically mentioned he wasn't female (as opposed to taking offense to "ma'am" specifically) was following this exchange.  I don't see Sleetman addressing him as female after that clarification either.  --Tathar (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You posted a comment expressing confusion as to why the term was at all inappropriate; I replied. That doesn't constitute "getting involved in an editblock" — it's just replying to a comment. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "You posted a comment expressing confusion as to why the term was at all inappropriate" I did this where?Sleetman (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Both on AN/I and in your original unblock request. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Bearcat should read WP:GLUE before continuing this discussion. --Tathar (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that I don't see how I've failed to do that. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, you've asked the guy eat his Humble pie, and he has. He's said that he was wrong to do what he did that got him blocked, and he said that he won't do it again.  What else do you want for him?  Admit that he's responsible for all things wrong on Wikipedia? Buddy431 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman is still blocked because he has yet to really apologize for violating WP:CIVIL. All of his "apologies" have skirted the issue. In his second unblock request, he says that he wouldn't have done what he did had he known Bearcat was gay...does that mean it's okay to call straight users ma'am after they've asked you not to? In his third request, he says he would have stopped had Bearcat told him why it was offensive. You don't need to be told why something is offensive - if someone asks you to stop, it's not that hard to just stop. In the last request, he just points us to the first three...and then defends himself! All in all, not the best sequence of events if you want to get unblocked.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as I'm already blocked, I technically don't need to apologize for violating WP:CIVIL since I'm unblocked now, although for courtesy's sake I will go on the record for saying I do apologize for violating WP:CIVIL. (I should also point out, I haven't called Bearcat miss, ma'am or any variant of a female name) As for this statement of yours, "if someone asks you to stop, it's not that hard to just stop" again, short of having done something wrong to a person, many (if not most) people would ask why it is that they're asked to stop what they are doing by that person. I reiterate my defense that I had no idea of Bearcat's sexual orientation (which is the reason why he took such offense at the female honorific) and that had I known about it, I would've stopped calling him that (which I did). I should also point out that the argument was started by Bearcat, so it's not as if the user is innocent here. Sleetman (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know very little of the original dispute, so I can't answer that, and it really doesn't look good to say you don't need to apologize just because you're unblocked. That aside, I think I can answer the rest of your statement with this: if someone asks you to stop doing something that you are doing, and that something could be even remotely construed as uncivil, its polite, and in my mind necessary per WP:CIVIL, to simply stop. No if's, and's or but's about it. Yes, you can question it if they are taking offense at something really far out there, but calling a guy ma'am, and then taunting him about it (see Errant's post below), is not really far out there. That's rude, regardless of whether they're gay or not.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To add; the main reason I declined one of the requests was not specifically to do with calling Bearcat "ma'am" but related to the taunting "Please miss (didn't call you ma'am)". After someone asks them to stop referring to you something you don't taunt them with a similar honorific. None of his unblock requests have dealt with that issue, focusing instead on why Bearcat might not like being called ma'am (frankly, I don't see the relevance of sexuality, someone calling me ma'am after I asked them not to would be annoying also). --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In case all of the above was not adequately clear... continuing to use the honorific "ma'am", and even "sir", is treading a very very thin line and you are risking being blocked for it again. Drop the honorific, it will only cause you trouble. --Errant (chat!) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong
Hi, your edits are under discussion at the BLP noticeboard here, please join in the discussion and make your case for inclusion, also please consider not reverting the disputed content back in whilst under discussion at the noticeboard, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the slim possibility that you are not familiar with 3RR, please see WP:3RR and consider this message a warning in relation to the Armstrong article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Karen Armstrong. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 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.


 * A final point, after my block, one of the editors who launched the edit warring complaint (Nomoskedasticity) immediately restored a disputed version of Karen Armstrong's wikipage.  If that is not edit warring I don't know what is. Sleetman (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That appears to be Nomo's first edit in three days. This does little to convince me that you understand what edit warring is.  Kuru   (talk)  02:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the edits from 16:00 - 16:05 show the removal of quotes sourced to a political self-published web-blog. 15:53 and 16:09 are reverts of previous edits (this doesn't violate the 3RR rule) and in any case it isn't clear why these edits be seen as problematic when all they show is a transfer of the material from one paragraph to a under a heading (receptions) that not even user Guettarda has objected to using. 22:58 reinserts the Adrea Levin material yes, there's nothing wrong with that as it's already been accepted by virtue of majority decision as a reliable source (See: particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong) I finally find it amusing how this big hullabaloo about edit warring should apply to me, but doesn't apply to Guettarda. Don't see why that user shouldn't get a block for "edit warring" if I'm going to get one too.Sleetman (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but have you actually read WP:3RR? The above paragraph seems completely misinformed.  Please take a look again; I'm afraid such an understating of the policy is going to lead to very quick future disruptive editing.  Kuru   (talk)  11:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, the point is WP:3RR proves my point that I've made only three reverts (15:53, 16:09 and 22:58 ); the fourth one from 16:00 - 16:05 (which would put me in violation of the three-revert rule) should be regarded as as a 3RR exemption (Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.).
 * And aside from all that, you've yet to give me a response as to why Guettarda isn't blocked for edit warring. Why is that? Sleetman (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit, at 16:00, is a revert. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points here: 1) Sir, I have no idea why you're even involved in my request for an unblock as that violates administrator rules . 2) Scratch the 22:58 revert as an example of an edit warring, it was a revert to enforce certain overriding policies (in this case, WP:RS. All the quotes re-added in that revert either comply with WP:RS and especially WP:BLP or received consensus on the talk page that they should be regarded as reliable sources. (particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong)Sleetman (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted by Guettarda, and addressed specifically in my unblock decline, there was more to that series of edits than just a BLP issue. Good luck. Kuru   (talk)  13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck indeed. What was the issue again? 3RR? Sorry, but I've just shown you in my paragraphs above how my reverts don't violate 3RR. Sleetman (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Involved admins" rule prohibits the use of admin tools in issues in which an admin is involved, it does not prohibit taking part in discussions - so an involved admin would be prohibited from accepting or declining an unblock request, from blocking or unblocking, etc, but not from taking part in the associated discussions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again? I'm not suprised. I would recommend reading and re-reading the Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong when you were edit-warring, edit-warring is not tolerated. Making more than 3 reverts is against policy. The ONLY exception to this is removing libelous/unsourced information from a BLP. Adding back information that is sourced to reliable sources is not an exception. Even then, it is better to report it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself. Again, while you are blocked, consider reading & re-reading the policies. DigitalC (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Friendly notice to let you know that you are currently at the limit of 3RR on Karen Armstrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Karen Armstrong. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz chat spy  08:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 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.
 * Note that you were blocked in late May for the same problem. Upon your return, you immediately resumed the same behaviour, including edit wwarring and 3RR issues. Once your block expires, I strongly advise that you head for the talk page, and that you do not change the article in question without a strong consensus to do so. --Ckatz chat spy  08:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I did a la my edit here Sleetman (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, since you have switched from "my edits were justified" to "I didn't repeatedly revert", here are a few diffs which show you repeatedly making edits which are in whole or in part the same. This is not a complete list, nor even anywhere near complete, it is just enough to show that you have reverted several times in the same article:
 * and
 * and
 * and ].

JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits 5 and 6 are not only tag additions that were not in dispute before, but also qualifies unsourced information in a BLP which is more than covered by DigitalC's observation that Wikipedia guidelines don't treat removal of libelous/unsourced information from a BLP as reverts; edit 7 is a re-addition of sources ALL of the sources that had already gained consensus on the talk page (which I admit is a revert in bad faith on my part), edit 8 and 9 are, in essence, edits for the same reasons (qualifying unsourced information) as edits 5 and 6 and so shouldn't be treated as a revert; edit 10 is another revert of bad faith. Despite edit 10, simple mathematics show that I'm haven't yet violated 3RR (hence Nomodeskaticity's edit on my page here but merely I'm at the limit of 3RR.....and yes, before anyone attempts to accuse of trying to "game the system," don't. As per the aformentioned summary for my first edit block appeal, as soon as the reverts were made, I took the issue regarding my edits on Armstrong's talk page  and BLP noticeboard .Sleetman (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave those examples to show that you had made multiple reversions, since you had denied having done so. Now you shift your argument from "I didn't revert" to "my reversions were justified". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags
Hi Sleetman, adding so many tags to articles as you've done here and elsewhere isn't a good way to proceed. The best thing is to check the references at the end of the sentence or paragraph to see if the information is there, and if it isn't to look for sources yourself. If you can't find any, then ask for sources on talk. Tagging should be a last resort before removal, and even then it's best to stick to one tag for the section or sentence in question. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the reason why I added those tags; because the references at the end of the sentences and paragraphs did NOT contain any of the information for the sentences for which I was applying the tags....which isn't surprising given the clearly tendentious and non-neutral wording of some of the sentences. e.g. "her book, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, an international best seller that is now required reading in many theology courses." (no citation given for the fact that the book is required reading in many theology courses); This was published in 1982 as, Through the Narrow Gate, to excellent reviews. (again, no citation for the fact that the book received excellent reviews). And even if I did ask for those sources on talk, my guess is nobody would answer them given: a) the limited number of users who even care about Armstrong's Wikipedia biography and b)the self-interest of the few users with whom I'm engaged in the edit war over Armstrong's page to filibuster my attempts to remove the POV sentences by refusing to find sources to corroborate the sentences for which I've put Wikipedia-editing tags.
 * But of course you don't need to take my word for it, you can take a look at the article in its current form here and judge for yourself whether or not any of the content on that page violates NPOV. Sleetman (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)