User talk:NicolasCaous

March 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Extreme project management have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to justify your change and discuss it with others. It's not up to others to accept it and discuss removing it. Everything is negotiable. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My actions are 100% following the WP:NPOV. It is absurd to imply that you are allowed to revert such a clear change that is improving the article to be not be as biased. You even used BRD as a reason to revert my changes, completely ignoring BRD own's text:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

NicolasCaous (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for reverting was not BRD- BRD is an explanation of proper procedure, which is incumbent on all, not just those who remove edits. It applies to you, too. I get that you think you are 100% correct- but you still need to make a case and justify your edit when challenged. This occurs every day all over Wikipedia.

I did not revert because I "didn't like it". I have years of experience here and my personal likes and dislikes are not relevant. Googling "Iran clandestine nuclear" brings up countless results so it is clearly a reasonable word to use here. It doesn't imply illegality(although the UN Security Council has been defied by Iran). I urge you to self-revert so this can be discussed and we can arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. That's proper procedure here. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Googling "Iran clandestine nuclear" brings up countless results so it is clearly a reasonable word to use here."

That is not true at all. It is really a question of bias and double standards. I presume that you are from a western country, so of course googling Iran's nuclear program will give you that impression... Because that is the west bias towards it. For the rest of the world, when we google "Iran clandestine nuclear" it is pretty obvious by whom that kind of language is used.

I think that, if you want to discuss this in good faith, lets open a talk page in the article. I can argue my point and we can all be fair. But I must say: I'll not revery my change because BRD is not for that. In my understanding of it, I (or someone else) would only have to revert it if the change was not an improvement (which it clearly is because of WP:NPOV).

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." NicolasCaous (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "double standards" and being from a western country has to do with this. (by the same token, you not being from a western country should disqualify you if the opposite disqualifies me). This is just a simple word choice issue. I'm quite happy with a different word if that's the word most sources use, I just don't think that's the case here. NPOV does not mean "if it has the slightest description against a subject it can't be used". However, I'm unwilling to discuss it if you are unwilling to follow proper procedure. I'll just rely on someone else potentially restoring the status quo for discussion. Someone either will, or not. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The double standard is the following: if it is Iran (a notorious rival to western hegemony), then we must use a bad word like "clandestine". It can never be a neutral one... like the ones used to describe the US', or France's nuclear program... By some "clandestine" reason, If I open Israel's nuclear program article, there is no "clandestine" being used anywhere to describe the program... I wonder why... 🤔🤔

Wikipedia is biased (and that is fine, as there is no such thing as a completely unbiased source of information), and people care about these double standards and try to improve wikipedia's biases. NicolasCaous (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so bothered by someone else's edit to use a more neutral word, then go ahead, create a talk page section in the article. I'm not preventing you from doing that... But for some "clandestine" reason, you just want to revert my changes (btw, my change is 100% in accordance with wikipedia's guideline, while yours isn't), forcing me to "open the discussion" about it... NicolasCaous (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because sources do not use that word? Sometimes things are really that simple. If you think Western sources should use different terminology, you need to take that up with them. The US, France, and Israel nuclear programs aren't described that way, probably because they do not violate UN Security Council resolutions and other agreements. They are described as "secret" because their information is not public.

I haven't been secretive about my reasons nor are they against guidelines- information here relies on what reliable sources say and as far as I know the vast majority of them use the word "clandestine". If you have sources that use different terminology, you haven't presented them- and even if you did, you seem to want to take it in the other direction with a pro-Iran position, not actually be neutral. You seem to be saying BRD doesn't apply to you because you are right but does to me because you think I'm not right. Like I said earlier, everything is negotiable, nothing is written in stone here. That you think you are 100% correct is not justification for not following proper procedure. As I said, I'm not doing anything further to the article at issue and probably won't discuss this again unless others revert it. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cladestine is a loaded word that implies the action is illegal. Just because a biased source used a loaded word to describe it, doesn't mean wikipedia has to use it as well. It is actually the opposite. Just look at WP:CONTENTIOUS. NicolasCaous (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just against common sense to say that X nation's nuclear program is clandestine, implying it is not allowed. This is clearly biased, as ALL NATIONS that are not signatory of the NPT are allowed to have a nuclear program under international law. NicolasCaous (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, just to clarify: I'm not coming from a pro-Iran position. I'm coming from an anti-west position. I'm biased against the west. But I'm also fair, instead of proposing to add a text like "Ah, so the US can have nuclear weapons and any other country that doesn't lick their boots can't", I just tried to manage my personal bias by going for a neutral position: "All countries are allowed to have nuclear programs under the current international law. Implying that some countries aren't allowed is a biased position. Either every country is not allowed, or every country is allowed." NicolasCaous (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]