User talk:Slava570

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. (t · c) buIdhe 13:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, I'm Buidhe. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (t · c) buIdhe 13:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

my edits today were new edits and had nothing to do with any warring. They were also neutral. I removed unsourced, non-neutral content, and these were not reverts. It's not acceptable for experienced editors to post threatening messages like if they have no basis. Slava570 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Slava570, I see you have a notice about wp:contentious topics. You probably want to add a Template:Contentious topics/aware to your page relating to the contentious topics you are editing articles about. Thanks so much for your contributions here! Ahalenia (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you so much for the tip! Slava570 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! Slava570 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I know because of my watchlist that a presently blocked and topic banned editor is trying to feed you pointers on an edit conflict you are involved in. I would strongly suggest that you ask them not to do so. I am not suggesting any wrongdoing on your part here, I want to make that clear, but their participation is not going to do anything good for your case and you can assume I am far from the only editor with that person on their watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, I'll do that, but I'm not going to ignore the links they gave me. I have a feeling those will be helpful, and the most important thing is the article. Slava570 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also I'm not convinced there's wrongdoing on their part here. "feeding me pointers?" I actually appreciate the help and I'm an adult and will use the information that I think is useful and not use what I don't think is useful. Whatever content I end up using in support of my future statements will be fully my own responsibility and no one else's. Slava570 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No wrongdoing on your part though I would question the reliability of the sources they gave you. But they are breaking a topic ban while blocked and, while I don't intend to go chasing anybody over it, a passing admin following their page is quite likely to end their talk page access for that. It's a serious arbitration violation, on their part. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also you might want to read this discussion [1]. They're not giving you sources that are clearly reliable. Far from it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Slava, you also should read WP:Proxying. You may not be doing that, but it may look like you are. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I appreciate this so much because it helps me understand how to navigate this. In all future edits related to this I will try to make sure to show that the changes are productive and [I] have independent reasons for making such edits. And this second part is in relation to reinstating edits of the blocked person (which doesn't technically apply to me, but I think it applies to me anyway, as I will take complete responsibility for the content [that I add]. This is how I felt anyway, but I will try to make it as explicit as I can if possible. Slava570 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to International Association of Genocide Scholars. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Repeatedly attempting to reinsert the idea that IAGS is not genocide scholars after being reverted is a form of long-term edit warring. And the POV-pushing here is going into WP:DE territory. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no side in the topic area, I try to avoid it as much as possible. I just wanted to say that "If this is a valid source, I will put the info back in." isn't the way to go. Discussion and consensus building with other editors will always bare more fruit. What is in an article needs to be based on all the sources about the subject, being reliably sourced doesn't guarantee inclusion (WP:VNOT). It's WP:NPOV that determines what's included, all content that is then included must be verifiable to a reliable source. Basically rather than arguing over a source, you need to find more sources to show that this is how reliable sources generally describe the group.
I'm only trying to offer some friendly advice, feel free to delete this and tell me to mind my own business if it's not helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, what you said is totally valid. I agree that I phrased that to make it sound like it's my way or the highway. In reality, I will try to do whatever additional work is necessary, including looking for more sources. FYI, I already have been compromising quite a bit, and I welcome you to look into the talk page and article history if you don't believe me. In fact, in my opinion, I seem to be compromising much more than anyone else on that page. I have made numerous adjustments based on other editors' feedback, and it seem like no matter what I do, it doesn't help. This, specifically, is a minor point. It's the fact that the organization is a dues paying org and that you don't have to be an academic to join. The amount of pushback I am getting over this small point is way out of proportion in my opinion. Slava570 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi,

I saw that you warned an IP for their edit at Jewish History. Just as an FYI, if an IP leaves an edit summary of Free Palestine. You jews will pay for what you have done., you can just go straight to reporting them to AIV. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK cool, I was wondering about that. thanks for letting me know... Slava570 (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Your statement: The fact that an author is at a right-wing think tank is 100% irrelevant, except for the fact that it shows you (and I suspect others here) are politically biased and attempting to exclude opposing viewpoints for political reasons in addition to being absurd is in fact an assumption of bad faith on your part. Not a good idea on a CTOP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I strongly suggest that you halt your false accusations of bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not accusing you of bias. I'm saying excluding a source because of the political leanings of the author is not Wikipedia policy. You explicitly said you wanted to do just that. If I said this in another way that wasn't as clear before, I ask that you please ignore that... This is exactly what I wanted to say, it's perfectly legitimate, and I stand by it. It would be more productive to discuss the sources and respond to the arguments. You said the source was not legitimage, but your reason for it was not correct. That's what matters. Slava570 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Obviously we disagree. That is no reason for you to state that my opinion is based upon bias. WP:FOC O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you! Slava570 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]