User talk:Zumoarirodoka/Archive 1

Archiving?
Regarding the sections you removed from your talk page, are you sure that you are not interested in archiving? See Talk page guidelines. Archiving makes past discussions easier to point to. Usually, anyway. I state "usually" because it can depend on how much discussion has gone on at a person's talk page. If it's just a week's worth, then it's not much of a pain to dig into the talk page edit history. If it's a year's worth (or more than a year) of substantial discussion, however, that is a different matter. I can help you set up the archive. Flyer22 (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just creating the archive now. – Jordan Hooper (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Finished creating archives. Let me know if I've done anything wrong. – Jordan Hooper (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on edits

 * When adding some tags like original research (OR) or NPOV, please also say why on the talk page, as for many, the reason will be unclear.
 * Also when trying to resolve DAB links, if you can't work out which one to use, it may be better to leave it or use Template:Disambiguation needed instead.
 * Use of is much better than specifying the number of columns, as different people have different sized screens, and forcing 3 columns is not good for the phone screen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the advice! And apologies for my poor editing skills. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mostly good, that is why I have added AWB access for you. But I have identified some easy things to improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaplin
Kindly stop warring on the above and discuss the edits like an adult. Open a discussion on the talk page if you wish.  Cassianto Talk   20:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not been edit warring at all. I merely reverted edits and added citations from the other article mentioned. My computer then glitched because of en edit conflict between you and I and automatically reverted the changes that I had made (at least, that's what it appears like to me) –– to which I then promptly reverted to my previous version, meaning that I had effectively only made one revert and added citation. I fail to see how that counts as an edit war. I apologise if you thought that I was being disruptive, that certainly was not the intention. But I do object to you telling me to "discuss the edits like an adult" –– my age has absolutely nothing to do with my edits, and I'm more competent than some of the older editors on Wikipedia, thank you very much. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. I reverted a bold edit, and you decided to revert the revert; that is warring which subjectively, is a childish thing to do.   Cassianto Talk   22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving your reasons, I guess. I disagree with the argument you're making, but this is a minor issue (in my opinion) on a subject I'm not 100% sure about, and I can't be bothered arguing with you, especially since you've shown (what I can only see as) clear hostility towards me, and taken to my talk page to engage in personal attacks. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Who's arguing? I came here to ask you to discuss rather than to war as a discussion should be taking place after a revert. It is you who has jumped on the defence by slinging around accusations of incivility.  Anyway, I'm rather bored of this interaction now, so i'll be on my way.   Cassianto Talk   07:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Violations of Wikiquette
Hello Zumoarirodoka and thank you for your additions to my talk page. I am afraid I must point out a few faux pas you have made, so you can avoid these embarrassments in the future and contribute more efficiently to Wikipedia.

Per WP:EASTER, links should always be relevant and should come from relevant, concise text: links which require you to guess or which tease the reader should be avoided and care should be taken to avoid making interpretations that constitute original research via links. Additionally, it can be conveyed as condescending to include Wiktionary links to words commonly understood by everyone.
 * Inappropriate links

Links to webpages formatted like this are often inappropriate, as are links formatted like this:. These links can be improved by formatting them as.
 * External links

WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to; any mention of Katie Price is strictly prohibited.
 * BLP guidelines

— Bilorv(talk)(c)(jordan smells) 2k15 (UTC)
 * Misquoting

This is how you quoted my signature. It is misrepresentative and constitutes, in my opinion, a personal attack. I would never, ever, have a signature which contains the colour green.

Please use the as of template when using dated expressions, to allow the page in question to be categorised so someone can update the statement in the future.
 * Dated expressions

The quote boxes on the left of your message messed up the numbering system you used in the main body of the message. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in you.
 * Formatting

Furthermore, I would like to clarify the following:
 * 1) The link to my email following from "jordan smells" was an obvious parody of my usual signature and your failure to notice this is clearly a case of WP:IDHT.
 * 2) Unlike you, I may not have a value > 3 on the Kinsey scale, but I'm a 6 on the Dawkins scale. Beat that.
 * 3) I would like to correct one of my prior statements to "zumoarirodoka smells", as you kindly pointed out my original message was ambiguous. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Juche and socialism with Chinese characteristics
WHy did you link to socialism with Chinese characteristics in the Juche "socialism of our style" section? Its not the same. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances, "socialism of our style" on the other hand seems to be against the implementation of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean circumstances (saying that what works in Russia, doesn't work here). The Chinese on the other hand, views M-L (as every Marxism) as internationalist... While there are some similarities, there are bigger differences between the two then what you presume. Please don't readd that link. Thanks, sincerely --TIAYN (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that addition, that was WP:OR on my behalf. I did move it to a hatnote in order for the article not to be too biased, but I understand why you removed the hatnote. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Thomas article
Hi, a couple of weeks ago, you removed a section about Ryan Thomas's bankruptcy - however this was reported widely at the time e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and HuffPo. I know DM is what it is, and people do dislike it, but they're not going to be gravely wrong when making such a bold claim against a living person, especially when the claim in question is a matter of public record - and its inclusion in other media outlets that bother themselves with such things is enough for me to consider this not a BLP issue and thus I feel it's fair to add it back to the article. Please let me know your thoughts if you disagree.Rayman60 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Thanks for notifying me here. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. please feel free to check/edit/amend my references or edit.Rayman60 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedophilia
The following book needs to be added to the page on pedophilia "Censoring Sex Research" The debate over Male Intergenational Relations by Thomas K Hubbard & Bert Verstraete. Left Coast Press 2013

The page also needs to point out that as far as anyone knows pedophilia is found in all cultures and most likely throughout all of man's history. Its earliest written appearence is found in early Greek and Roman writings. This being the case one would have to conclude that it has probably been around long before any written record of it appeared in writing. Everything about points to it being a sexual orentation and should no longer be viewed as a disorder by the APA. BrisadelMar1 (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC) With regards to Greek and Roman writings, there is a Wikipedia article on Pederasty and Pederasty in ancient Greece, which are not necessarily the same as pedophilia. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just pinging they're probably a lot more qualified than I am to talk about this.


 * , see Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ for why the Pedophilia article doesn't "talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Mohammed)." As for pedophilia supposedly being a sexual orientation, see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18, Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18, and this discussion (that is, if you haven't already). It is WP:Fringe to call pedophilia a sexual orientation, and the American Psychiatric Association does not consider pedophilia a sexual orientation, as made clear in the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Zumoarirodoka, do you mind me asking why you are so interested in pedophilia, pederasty and child sexual abuse topics? I know why these editors (including the ones I WP:Pinged) are interested in those topics. And I like to have a good idea of what the editors I'm working with, or am sort of working with, on these topics think about them. I'm interested in these topics because I have a great deal of knowledge of them, have interacted with child sexual abuse victims and witnessed the psychological and/or physical effects that they've experienced, and because of my WP:Child protection efforts (those efforts are noted on my user page). Granted...those WP:Child protection efforts keep some editors from expressing their true feelings to me about these topics.

Does your interest in these topics have anything to do with what you state at User:Zumoarirodoka/Politics? I ask because I've heard and read what certain people call a "liberal view" on pedophilia, and how they've argued that we should be embracing these people's sexual attraction. The problem with embracing this sexual attraction is that it's a sexual attraction that is unequal with regard to the adult's cognitive level and the child's cognitive level, and it can cause harm, as pedophiles who say they fight that sexual attraction and don't sexually interact with children also state. Accepting the sexual attraction (in the way that psychiatrists and psychologists accept it as a reality and study it) is one thing; thinking that pedophiles should be treated in the "it's normal and okay" way that heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual people are with regard to their sexual attractions is another thing.

Of course...you don't have to answer this query. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's fine, I guessed that this question would come up some time or another, and tbh I'm glad it's you who asked me, rather than another Wikipedia editor. I apologise if I ramble on, or if what I say doesn't make much sense, but this is quite a difficult subject for me to write about, and I have to choose my words quite carefully as there are people who I know in real life who edit here.
 * I just want you to know, first and foremost, that I have no plans to stray away from Wikipedia's view of WP:NPOV, especially with regards to such a sensitive subject. If you believe that I have been violating this policy, I wholeheartedly apologise. I'd also like to clarify that I am not a paedophile, although that seems to be somewhat unnecessary as if I said I was, I would be banned under WP:Child protection (despite being a child myself).
 * I guess I just want to make Wikipedia have a much more comprehensive view on these subjects and cover all bases, so to speak. I certainly don't think we should "embrace" paedophilia, nor do I believe that it's the same as being lesbian, gay or bisexual. Organisations like the (now disbanded) Paedophile Information Exchange in the UK and the North American Man/Boy Love Association in the US twist the facts to conform to their views (which, quite frankly, I find abhorrent and somewhat disturbing); I certainly don't want to give anyone the impression that I am in favour of these people. As a member of the LGBT community, I feel kind of ashamed these organisations did – and still do – exist, and tried to ally themselves with our cause. I fully accept everything you say above – accepting the sexual attraction (or interest, preference, whatever you want to call it) is one thing; but child sexual abuse is abhorrent and should never be tolerated. It is somewhat irritating how, in the media, "paedophilia" is used to refer to any child sexual abuse.
 * My "interest" (if you could call it that) around these topics – apart from just general curiosity on "taboo" subjects – probably gained momentum* when I was alerted (via a friend) of an article written by the British National Party (which was then a growing far-right party in the UK) about the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell (who I admired, and still do), accusing him of pro-paedophile activism (which Tatchell emphatically denies on his site, BTW). Long story short, there were references to organisations like PIE in that article, which I had never really known about. I read up on British pro-paedophile advocacy groups (via Wikipedia and other sources), which I was astonished to find what genuinely existed, and how widespread these organisations were. I also analysed what they had to say (which makes for some chilling reading, sometimes) and tried to present this in an informative way in some articles. So I guess it's somewhat related to my political views, although not in the way that you describe it. I've also been very interested on how the media reports on various issues (usually political but sometimes social issues as well), and the Operation Yewtree investigations, the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal (as well as other celebrities) has – in my opinion – led to a moral panic in the UK; the media didn't do much to cool down the flames (for example, when Phillip Schofield gave PM David Cameron a list of paedophiles live on air). I just want to add information to these articles, and make sure that there are no WP:NPOV violations.
 * (* there are also other, more personal, reasons why I am involved with this topic. I'm willing to disclose via email if you'd like, but I've addressed most things here.)
 * — Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 20:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you going into detail about all of that, Zumoarirodoka. Yes, at Talk:Pedophilia, I and others have seen pedophiles (and likely pedophiles) argue that homosexuality and pedophilia are similar or are "in the same boat" because both are sexual orientations, both cannot result in sexual reproduction from the sexual act, and because both gay/lesbian people and pedophiles are heavily discriminated against for their sexual orientations. One example of this being slightly addressed is this discussion from Talk:Sexual orientation, which you've likely seen by now. I've already been over the "not a sexual orientation" aspect above in this section. Pedophilia is sometimes compared to sexual orientation by mental health professionals, but it's not officially/usually deemed a sexual orientation. It's often that these types of editors will also point out that homosexuality used to be widely considered a mental disorder by health professionals, and use that to speculate that times will change and pedophilia will one day generally not be considered a mental disorder. I've seen and heard a variety of asinine homosexuality and pedophilia comparisons. As for you, if you had identified as a pedophile on Wikipedia, you likely would have gotten indefinitely blocked (not WP:Banned), but I think that would have been due to your age (that, in addition to you stating your age as 16, a 16-year-old is not a little kid). At age 16, as you know, people can be medically diagnosed as pedophiles since 16-year-olds are commonly post-pubescent and it is not normal for them to be sexually fixated on prepubescents. If a person were a 14-year-old claiming to be a pedophile, that person might get indefinitely blocked as a WP:Troll or for their own good and/or protection. There are self-identified pedophiles (as in identified off Wikipedia) who edited the Virtuous Pedophiles article, but I think they have a good chance of not being indefinitely blocked for that since, in addition to not going on about being a pedophile on Wikipedia, they state that they are against sexually abusing prepubescent children and are against child sexual abuse in general. Anyway, again, I appreciate the insight into why you are editing these articles. No need to go into sensitive, personal detail. For example, it's common for a child sexual abuse victim or a person close to a child sexual abuse victim to be interested in these topics. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry if I went on a bit too much. Like I said, these aren't the only reasons, but I think it's covered the main aspects.
 * That is interesting regarding the Virtuous Pedophiles article; I was under the impression that any self-identified paedophile would be indefinitely blocked (I used the wrong word above). To me, that always seemed odd if the editor was not pushing their own POV on Wikipedia, although I'm assuming that whenever an editor "outs" themselves like that, it's often not for a good cause. — Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Virtuous Pedophiles article, the two self-identified pedophiles (actually, only one is self-identified as far as I know) would likely get indefinitely blocked if someone reported them on Wikipedia as being self-identified pedophiles. Then again, they might not be, since they've only (or mainly in the case of the editor who posted at Talk:Pedophilia about DSM-5 changes) focused on editing the Virtuous Pedophiles article, which is about their organization. WP:COI also comes into play in that case. And, as you can see on the talk page of that article, it has not been without its conflict. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of tabloid newspapers as sources
Although it may go against the grain, Wikipedia treats tabloids like The Sun as Reliable Sources on the grounds that they have editorial oversight and fact-checking. I've reverted your removal of sources from the List of Transgender People page.Martinlc (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do articles relating to lists of living people not have to go by the biography of living persons guidelines (i.e. per WP:BLPSOURCES)? If not, then I apologise for the removal. — Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they do have to conform to BLP. But I think that articles where the subject is the focus of the reporting, or is quoted, probably reach the level of sourcing (rather than a stray comment by columnist, say).  Martinlc (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Martinlc, Wikipedia commonly treats The Sun and other tabloids as unreliable sources (though they may be used for non-contentious information without objection; for example, basic book facts, or to report on some other basic fact). You can ask about this at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or WP:BLP noticeboard, and/or look at the archives about it here. In fact, I'll just WP:Ping AndyTheGrump on this matter since he is one of our best WP:BLP editors. There is a difference, however, between a tabloid and a respectable newspaper that prints in tabloid format. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."Martinlc (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope no-one minds me abruptly jumping into this conversation. I don't know where you're getting that from but "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" comes from WP:BLPSOURCES and seems more relevant here. More specifically, take a look at this random RSN discussion and you'll see the attitude editors have towards The Sun. It is not reliable for anything other than the most basic and uncontroversial of facts. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really want to make a big fuss out of this. I understand why Martinlc may believe that the Sun was an acceptable source to use, as these are mostly uncontroversial. However, given the context, I think that it's better to have a more reliable source mentioned (at the very least to supplement the Sun source that was cited). Otherwise, it seems to go against Wikipedia policy, as I stated and as Bilorv reiterated. Plus, neither the Sun nor the Mail have a great track record on trans issues. BTW, if Flyer22 or Bilorv are interested in the specific removals, here they are. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Question then
Regarding your reverts on child sexual abuse, my question is what is the difference between rape and fondling? I thought fondling was a form of molestation whereas rape would be distinguished. If you can clarify these then I have no concerns. I'd also suggest forms of sexual abuse in the article to avoid confusion. What do you think?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue has been discussed on that article's talk page; as I've said before that I am no expert in this area. The page child molestation, as it is, currently redirects to the child sexual abuse article: these articles are often monitored by experts in the field who stick to reliably-sourced definitions, generally speaking. You'd be best bringing it up with Flyer22, Legitmus and KateWishing, who have expressed an interest on the article's talk page.
 * Sorry I personally cannot be of help to you. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Invalid attempt to nominate Russian Nationalism for Good Article status
Zumoarirodoka, adding a nomination directly to the WP:GAN page as you did earlier today only results in the entry being deleted by the bot; the nomination needs to take place on the article's talk page where the bot picks it up. WP:GANI gives the instructions on how to make a valid nomination.

However, the article would be the recipient of a quickfail review, given the state it is in now. The just-completed Guild of Copy Editors work on the article pointed out a great number of places that require source citations, and the editor did not remove other templates at the top of the article—maybe you should ask about that?—which also highlight issues, such as neutrality, that would cause an article to fail a GA review (see WP:WIAGA for the GA requirements). My suggestion would be to clear up the outstanding issues raised by these templates and the copyedit first, and then perhaps request a peer review on the article (noting that the goal is GA) for further improvement suggestions. Once those steps are completed, then nominate that article. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender role
Hi there. Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Just a heads up that I reverted your edits at Gender role. For such a big block of sourced text to be removed (especially in a sometimes contentious article), it's generally best to ensure there's consensus to do so on the talk page first. Nothing wrong with a WP:BOLD edit, of course, but now we're at the D of WP:BRD :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The content in that section just seemed more appropriate at Legal aspects of transsexualism article, personally (from "In Canada..." to "...their biological sex"."), and the other section seemed to be discussing the differences between overlapping terminologies already mentioned on their respective articles, but I suppose that is actually quite relevant with regards to the Gender role article and so I shouldn't have deleted it. Oh, and reasons for this edit can be seen in -sche's edit summary here, on Transgender, as I linked to. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia
I saw the earlier edit. As it's sourced text, it really depends on what the sources say, don't you think? 11:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about this edit, the Wikipedia page on Nazism (which is what a hyperlinked "National Socialism" redirects to) says: Following the Holocaust and German defeat in World War II, only a few fringe racist groups, usually referred to as neo-Nazis, still describe themselves as following National Socialism. As per this statement and WP:COMMONNAME, it seems appropriate to call modern movements espousing so-called National Socialism as neo-Nazi, as well as their websites. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle, and in fact assume the sources say that. I should have said all that and that I'm tired of people adding/changing sourced text. Sorry to have bothered you though with such a vague comment. Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no it's fine, sorry I misunderstood. I haven't read the sources, but I highly doubt that they would characterise the site as "National Socialist", either. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wales Green Party
There is a discussion at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales to establish if Wales Green Party (which currently redirects to a section inside Green Party of England and Wales) is notable enough to be restored as a standalone article. As you either took part in the AfD, or are a significant contributor to either Wales Green Party or Green Party of England and Wales, you are being contacted to see if you have input to the discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasbara
Greetings again. I found the removed sample posters informative. Maybe you just shift them up so that at least some are retained, instead of deleting all of them? Zezen (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've shifted them up now, still not particularly keen on layout but I suppose it's good. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt
If you want to, please take a look at this weeks TAFI selected article, Marie Serneholt. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

10 Downing Street
Hi cool for the revert but are you aware that the Cameron family actually reside at number 11 Downing street?

This was a trend start by Tony & Cherie Blair as the flat in number 10 was too small for them and their children so they moved into the larger flat at number 11 and the Camerons have done the same thing.

All the best!

Pam-javelin (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, I see. Apologies for the revert! – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Grammar
'Described by the American Jewish Congress as "Hitler's henchman", much of the case.' That means, grammatically, that 'much of the case' was described as 'Hitler's henchman', not Husseini.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, thanks for noticing that Is this any better? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Grammatically poifect. That's a great phrase, and we should keep it. Not convinced that is quite the right spot for it. But on these things, one moves slowly. It'll be sorted out, and thanks for the contribution. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
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. --John (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed you have continued to edit war this defamatory material into an article in violation of all consensus at the various discussions. I have therefore requested that you be blocked for this violation. It may be that a quick self-revert will stand in your favour, or it may not. It's your call. --John (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which discussions are you talking about? You seem to be primarily objecting to me re-adding a section on the Gurkha controversy (plus other minor points) on very vague claims of tabloid journalism, which have been rejected by and others. Am I right? Or have I missed the point here? I'm willing to undo my edits if you explain to me the BLP violations, specifically.
 * And again, please be civil and stop issuing threats to me and other editors engaged in this conflict. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As well as article talk, this is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (to clarify policy) and at WP:AN/I (as you already know). There are no others besides Snowded who agree with adding material from the Daily Star (a tabloid) that relates to a living person, when we have a policy WP:BLPSOURCES which specifically forbids this. Your participation in the illegal edit-warring is particularly unfortunate as another user had crafted a compromise which all participants were happy with, even Snowded. You knew you were joining in an edit-war (your first edit summary makes this clear) so the onus was on you to check up on these things. Now it looks likely you will face some sort of sanction, which is a shame as I see you have never been blocked before. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't realise that specifically was issue; I've removed that paper's comments even before I saw your reply here. I tried to look up on what was going on but different bits were being discussed at different places and I did not know specifically which sources, statements etc. you were objecting to. Thank you for the clarification. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the most egregious violation. I don't like using the Huffington Post for the Ghurkas section either but I can haggle with you in article talk about that. The Star is a worthless tabloid and should never be used to source anything here, ever. --John (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * John, when have I ever said that the Star is a reliable source? Please try and cool it Snowded  TALK 22:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, as we can now say that nobody favours this worthless source. I was mixing it up with the Sun reference that you restored twice, which is every bit as bad, but I am glad it seems that sanity has now been restored all round. We can discuss the merits of using the HuffPo (if there are any) at article talk. --John (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanity is more likely to be restored when you realise that a genuine question of clarification of policy has been raised and engage with other editors as equals rather than issuing threats and demands for blocks when people disagree with you and/or you completely misinterpret what they are saying/trying to achieve. I repeat, the policy as stated does not specifically forbid the use of material from tabloids its forbids tabloid journalism which can occur in many places even the quality newspapers from time to time.   I reverted you en mass because you were simply refusing to listen to that point and edit warring around your interpretation of that policy.   Try and listen to what is being said rather than aggressive reverts and threatening notices.  If you propose a clarification at BLP to reject any material only supported by Tabloids there is a good change you will get support.  But you have to work with others to clarify policy not simply assert that you are right. Snowded  TALK 00:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The existing policy is pretty clear to those of us with a clue. Thanks for clarifying that you (twice) reverted in a source you acknowledge to be poor on a BLP to make a point. Is this your idea of "work[ing] with others"? If I see you do this again I will lobby strongly for you to be blocked. Zumoarirodoka, sorry to take up your talk page educating Snowded. I think the matter is closed now, so I won't post here again. --John (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Todate no other editor has agreed with your interpretation of the policy and you haven't taken part in the discussion on the policy board other than to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You went to ANI to get myself and Zumoarirodoka blocked and it was closed as a content issue.  I think you have the problem, but if you take it to ANI again feel free.  If you revert factual material, properly referenced to a tabloid which is not indulging in tabloid journalism then you are failing to abide by policy.  If you issue threats of a block on people's talk pages in pursuit of your interpretation when they are following the guidance laid down in WP:RS then you are abusing the mop and that becomes the issue  Snowded  TALK 10:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with Snowded here. Civil debates on contentious issues are much better than issuing block threats indiscriminately to editors you disagree with. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender roles in childhood
I removed the essay-like template that you added to Gender roles in childhood as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of "When to use", and because without a Talk page section or any stated reason in the edit summary, it's difficult to know what issues to address, or what you see as problematic or lacking. I don't find the article essay-like, but if you do, please readd the template, along with a link to a Talk page section where you discuss your reasons, and perhaps a helpful edit summary as well. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at RT News
Hello there,

There's a discussion at the talk page of RT News that involves some edits of yours that were reverted, changed, or altered. I'm just giving you a heads-up, since your edits are directly involved in the contention.

Thank you!

Solntsa90 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll get involved ASAP. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
You said here that "There also seems to be significant POV-pushing and conflicts of interest by editors on both sides of the debate". Could you please explain who of the editors has a conflict of interest and why? My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was worded incorrectly and I've now removed the part about conflict of interest. What I was trying to say was basically what has now said, i.e. that there are editors with particular biases pushing their POV on the page (e.g. "interested editors citing interested and marginal sources in a bid to "prove" how terrible RT is"). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then. Obviously, WP:COI problems are present in the project, but I did not see any evidence in this case. I responded to comment by N-HH here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry for any misunderstanding. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've edited almost no articles related to Russia or Ukraine, so I think I'm clear to be of the scrutiny of bias. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say but your conduct on the talk page would suggest otherwise. However, you are nowhere near the only editor to show bias on such a contentious topic. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 01:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only user Solntsa90 previously edited in this subject area, but they have received an editing restriction in this subject area . My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was briefly restricted over almost two years ago on a topic relating to Ukraine; that isn't a related subject, and it was two years ago. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I failed to see how editing "a topic relating to Ukraine" was not related to "articles related to Russia or Ukraine". Now, I would also appreciate your reply to my another question : where did you revert my edits? Are you talking about reverting from a different account? My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)