| Revision as of 20:43, 29 December 2020 view sourceValereee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators84,088 edits →December 2020: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:46, 29 December 2020 view source Valereee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators84,088 edits →December 2020: Replying to CaptainEek (using reply-link)Next edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ::::::::Thats not what I meant, what I meant was: valereee pinged me, levivich, and GS, and apologized for doing so, because it seems clear that valereee just meant to link our names, not ping us. But linking a name = ping. So there is a template that allows the name to be linked, but not pinged. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | ::::::::Thats not what I meant, what I meant was: valereee pinged me, levivich, and GS, and apologized for doing so, because it seems clear that valereee just meant to link our names, not ping us. But linking a name = ping. So there is a template that allows the name to be linked, but not pinged. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::SD, because at SK, in my opinion, it's disruptive. At RSN, IMO, it's not. If you take it to RSN and folks there agree with you that of course a 1946 CIA report is completely reliable for things other than ''what the 1946 CIA report says'', you can totally ask to be rightfully unblocked and bring that 1946 CIA report back to support assertions about what was actually happening or not happening in Syria in 1946. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | :::::::::::SD, because at SK, in my opinion, it's disruptive. At RSN, IMO, it's not. If you take it to RSN and folks there agree with you that of course a 1946 CIA report is completely reliable for things other than ''what the 1946 CIA report says'', you can totally ask to be rightfully unblocked and bring that 1946 CIA report back to support assertions about what was actually happening or not happening in Syria in 1946. ] (]) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::{{u|CaptainEek}}, I was mostly apologizing for giving SD permission to ping you to RSN without your permission. :D ] (]) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:46, 29 December 2020
/
National parks and nature reserves of Israel
I saw your posts on the talk page from years ago. Anyway, I tagged the article because it just is not NPOV and gives wrong idea to readers.Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/997015925 SD, you are simply refusing to stop arguing that non-scholarly sources are "reliable". You have far too much experience to be making this mistake once it's been explained to you, which it has multiple times, that on this contentious article, only recent scholarly work is a good-enough source. I really didn't want to make this block, but the POV-pushing has just become really problematic. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I was discussing something historical regarding the 1920s and Ottoman Empire, I have an old CIA source, why cant I discuss this at the talkpage? Who decided that "only recent scholarly" work is a good-enough source? If it is my opinion that the CIA source is good why cant i express that at the talkpage? Why are you shutting down normal discussion between editors? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- At a contentious article, it's pretty typical to require only the very best of sources. As Levivich has pointed out on numerous occasions, we have large amounts of recent peer-reviewed scholarly work, which is the gold standard for a reliable source. Trying to argue that a 1946 primary source is RS is just absurd on its face. I'm really sorry. I didn't want to issue this block. I just really don't know what more appropriate action there is to deal with this level of WP:IDHT. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, It is my opinion that the CIA source is a very good source, I have the right to express my view concerning the source at the talkpage. The source showed that other claims inside the article was historically inaccurate. Why cant I discuss that at the talkpage? If there was consensus reached at the talkpage that the source was not good, then I wouldn't be using it. Look at the lead now, the majority supported the new lead, I was against it, they changed it to the new lead, did you see me change it back? No, I accepted that the majority supported the new lead. There was no problem at all, no disruption, no edit warring. The article is calm. This is how you are supposed to build and improve an article, discuss different views and sources at the talkpage. And now you come and block me for having a normal discussion at the talkape. Is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Look this Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds, there is a one sided purge/witch Hunt. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please discuss at WP:RSN. Feel free to ping me and (with apologies) Levivich, CaptainEek, and Girth Summit. —valereee (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, what am I supposed to do at WP:RSN? I was discussing the CIA source at the "Syrian Kurdistan" talkpage with Levivich in a civilized manner when you blocked me, and now you want me to discuss it at RSN? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, You can use Template:Noping in situations like these ;) CaptainEek ⚓ 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, good advice, block someone for no sensible reason and then run away. Good advise from one admin to another. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, you're supposed (if you wish) to discuss the source in a forum where the question of whether a 1946 CIA report is a reliable source isn't disruptive. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, Why cant I discuss its reliability at the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage with Levivich? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thats not what I meant, what I meant was: valereee pinged me, levivich, and GS, and apologized for doing so, because it seems clear that valereee just meant to link our names, not ping us. But linking a name = ping. So there is a template that allows the name to be linked, but not pinged. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, because at SK, in my opinion, it's disruptive. At RSN, IMO, it's not. If you take it to RSN and folks there agree with you that of course a 1946 CIA report is completely reliable for things other than what the 1946 CIA report says, you can totally ask to be rightfully unblocked and bring that 1946 CIA report back to support assertions about what was actually happening or not happening in Syria in 1946. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, I was mostly apologizing for giving SD permission to ping you to RSN without your permission. :D —valereee (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, you're supposed (if you wish) to discuss the source in a forum where the question of whether a 1946 CIA report is a reliable source isn't disruptive. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, good advice, block someone for no sensible reason and then run away. Good advise from one admin to another. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, It is my opinion that the CIA source is a very good source, I have the right to express my view concerning the source at the talkpage. The source showed that other claims inside the article was historically inaccurate. Why cant I discuss that at the talkpage? If there was consensus reached at the talkpage that the source was not good, then I wouldn't be using it. Look at the lead now, the majority supported the new lead, I was against it, they changed it to the new lead, did you see me change it back? No, I accepted that the majority supported the new lead. There was no problem at all, no disruption, no edit warring. The article is calm. This is how you are supposed to build and improve an article, discuss different views and sources at the talkpage. And now you come and block me for having a normal discussion at the talkape. Is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- At a contentious article, it's pretty typical to require only the very best of sources. As Levivich has pointed out on numerous occasions, we have large amounts of recent peer-reviewed scholarly work, which is the gold standard for a reliable source. Trying to argue that a 1946 primary source is RS is just absurd on its face. I'm really sorry. I didn't want to issue this block. I just really don't know what more appropriate action there is to deal with this level of WP:IDHT. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I was discussing something historical regarding the 1920s and Ottoman Empire, I have an old CIA source, why cant I discuss this at the talkpage? Who decided that "only recent scholarly" work is a good-enough source? If it is my opinion that the CIA source is good why cant i express that at the talkpage? Why are you shutting down normal discussion between editors? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)