User talk:Simonm223/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Continuation of conversation on Syrians, WP:CIVIL and Youtube

Note, this comment was posted to my archive by @Nacirian: I have removed it from my archive and posted it on my current talk page.

That can be interpreted it in many ways.

If you haven't noticed, i was very careful in wording my comments.

I put that Comment in a context outside of Wikipedia, as i was quoting an argument from (you tube).

Also, "C*unts", can really mean anything in my opinion. either an acronym or a word.

I did not say what letter got replaced by (*).

And how was saying "you're a christian? Not surprised." is inappropriate in any way??.

That could also mean anything. Nacirian (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not altered the user's statement in the above quote, but they are welcome to revise it here if they feel it necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to AR-15 style rifle, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Caution for wholesale removal of content, with a misleading edit summary. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted a literally illiterate and confounding paragraph. It was a mess. But whatever. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert, because of recent edit on AR-15 style rifle

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your courteous editing is much appreciated. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert proper edit

Hi, on the poodle page you have reverted 2 factual documented ref. Before doing so, you must explain why the fact that saying the 93 countries out 100,are recognising the poodle as a French breed in of. Of interest. Motive your cancelation on factual, scientific and probant ref. Furthermore why have you cancelled the ref from the America’s. Kennel club saying that the Bichon is descending from the Barbet and thus the poodle? Did you at least took the time to read the ref or just cancelled it by dogmatism? before engaging in a POV? Otherwise this is just vandalism. Prove that my ref are wrong, not pertinent and let go to an arbutrafupuon commity. This is childish and absolutely not in the compliance with the wiki rules. This is absolutely ludupicrous to try to prevent by any mean to let in the article the fact that the overwhelming countieoes worlwide are considering the poodle as a french breed especially in the origin section of the breed Imcan’t believe that all this mess is for this sentence which is by the way right, pertinent and documented I would add that erasing a ref stating that the poodle descends from the barbers in not in accordance with the rule of wiki relating to the veracity of the info--Gabriel HM(talk) 16:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

--Gabriel HM (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must do nothing of the sort. You are edit-warring contrary to the opinion of anyone else on that talk page, myself included. And calling my legitimate challenge to your edits, which I supported with policy responses on talk, vandalism is not going to look good for you if this eventually goes to WP:3RR/N. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, let’s go to the arbitration commity and we’ll see who is keeping erasing pertinent, documented and neutral references. We’ll discusse how you have erased another ref from the american kennel club stating that the bichonn descends from the Barbet and thus the poodle. Let’s got to the arbitration committee and we’ll see who is not their right by keeping erasing the simple sentence That 93 counties worldwide asserts that the poddle is a French breed. If you are not afraid to make them lose their time, let’s go and expose your actions. There is a absolutly nothing wrong in this assertion especially that I never EVER cancelled the refs of the other contributor contrary to him. As far as I am concerned, the one that keeps erasing the ref of the article is not me. So if you wish, let’s go to the commity, and we’ll se what they think about your threats and perpétuel cancelation of a simple facts. Two man does not make the reality nor the truth. --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is not currently under any sort of arbitration. I think you might have a hard time getting the ArbCom to pick up a case where you are at 4 reverts in 24 hours contrary to consensus on the first day of an RfC. There might be a WP:BOOMERANG for it. I'd suggest we wait and see what WP:3RR/N has to say about it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

Please do no post on my talk page, you are not welcome there. You have shown a lack of character and to be extremely uncivil in your attempts to belittle others intelligence [1],[2]. Your attempt to place your opinions on my talk page is just seen as your attempt to antagonize. So again please stay off my talk page. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to warn a person on their talk page prior to reporting them for edit warring. As that is what I did, I will note your request, but if you persist in edit warring, I will follow policy. Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

See [3].Waleswatcher (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

See also an ANI thread about this very issue: "If you have a legitimate warning about 72bikers's conduct, you may post a warning once. 72's removal of the warning or even a comment on the warning that asks you not to post should be respected. If the behavior that triggered the warning repeats and escalated warnings are justified, go ahead (has to be a new incident of the same conduct). No commentary should be added once 72 has asked you to stay away. If the supposed misconduct becomes sufficiently serious, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard."

These accusations of "lack of character" and "attempt to antagonize" are concerning. –dlthewave ☎ 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How is that at all relevant? I have only ever posted to User Talk:72bikers once. I replied to their spurious accusation on my talk page and they're the ones who called me uncivil and claimed I showed a lack of character. As for "attempting to antagonize" them, I posted a single standard edit warring warning. That was it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear, I meant it's concerning that 72Bikers is making these unfounded accusations. 72's "talk page bans" have been an issue before and the ANI thread supports your idea that they can't prevent you from leaving legitimate warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's clearer. Thanks. And sorry for replying a bit snippy. I'm having a bit of an off day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR rule on Jeremy Corbyn

It seems to me that you made 3 reverts in 24 hours on that page. I kindly ask you to check it out and revert yourself if I am right as that page is under 1RRTritomex (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was under 1RR I was not aware of any DS. Furthermore, my reverts were of substantially different edits. If there is DS please provide the proper notification and I will abide by them going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon review of the log, your edit on the 27th has not been re-inserted by any of the many subsequent editors both before and after my reverts and so, per WP:BRD I would ask you to go to talk to discuss inclusion of your WP:NPOV problematic inclusion rather than trying to use the fact that the next day I did two reverts entirely unrelated to your edit to compel me to roll the article back 24 hours. Go to talk and get consensus there for inclusion of material you think is relevant. Wikipedia isn't a competition and it's not a battleground; so please don't try to make it one. Simonm223 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Posting this for informational purposes only, since you have recently edited Sarah Jeong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks for

the implied confidence NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on WP:ANI. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)