User talk:Prunesqualer/Archives/2021/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Julian Assange
“What SPECIFICO said” is not very satisfactory.
Not my problem. Yours, perhaps, but not mine. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Space between text and opening ref tag
Prunesqualer, I hesitate to raise what is admittedly a tiny matter of style, but I have noticed both in your edits of Julian Assange and your comments at Talk:Julian Assange a consistent extraneous space between text and opening <ref tags. Per MOS:REFSPACE, All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space.
Please consider this guideline in making future edits. Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Questionable edit at Julian Assange
Your edit today, in which you removed a word from a reliably sourced direct quotation, is unacceptable. Please do not continue to sabotage the Assange BLP in this way. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022I wonder did you see my talk page comment explaining the edit? as I said:
“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”
As explained: you can either have the “crazed” word included or the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” you can’t have both and stay true to the source. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is your edit PS that was untrue to the source. Please acknowledge Basketcase's point and find a way to correct your edit that will make it compliant with WP policies and practices for such content. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This [[1]] is an unacceptable attack on fellow users. Please remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please remove it or I will report you, per wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't make personal remarks on article talk pages
On Assange, you continue to make personal remarks about other editors instead of discussing any issues you may wish to raise concerning their edits. Please read WP:TPG. If you continue this behaviour, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read what you refer to as my “personal remarks about other editors”. You accuse me of making “personal remarks about other editors instead of discussing any issues you may wish to raise concerning their edits” It seems plain that you are referring to my comments about your own edits. I would invite you to reread my comments wherein you will find I DO time and time again “discuss [... the]issues {I] wish to raise concerning [your] edits” (I invite other editors to review the editing record on this). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange
You need to let talk page discussion proceed to give time and space for you to build consenus, if possible, for your preferred article text. There is never a valid reason to reinstate unsourced article text. Moreover, in talk page discussions, in order to reach a constructive consensus, you would need to respond to other editors' stated concerns. Mere repetition of your complaints is not responsive discussion of the issue of DUE WEIGHT. Please give a careful read to our page WP:NPOV and to WP:ONUS, which cover this. @Slatersteven: and I have commented on the article talk page. You have not made any substantive argument or gained any editors who argue that your edits were not UNDUE and failing VERIFICATION. I will ask you one time to undo your precipitous reinstatement of your edit and allow time for you to gain consensus on talk. I will also warn you that your behaviour over the past month or two is heading you for an enforcement action and a block or ban if you are not willing or able to slow down, stop personalizing your comments and attitudes, stop accusing and disparaging other editors and their work, and to work patiently and collaboratively. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO I appreciate you polite and measured tone here. I need to explain - you appear to be under a misapprehension regarding what you are calling my edit. If you check the version of the Assange page that was in place before my edit two days ago you will find it already contains the sentence: ” Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"” and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups” In fact the edit is not as old as I first thought (not sure why I thought it a year+ old) however it dates from the 14th of April this year (it was made by Darouet | here ) - perhaps the fact that I slotted my new sentences in before it and moved one of the citations to behind my sentences made made you think it was in with my new material? Anyway as longer standing material it should probably stay till we get agreement and as stated on the talk page the information is properly sourced and citated Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange talk
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.