User talk:Slomo666
Archives
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
Stop icon Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war . This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Polygnotus (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thanks for the warning. I had not considered it an edit war at the time. I'll try to leave this alone. I don't even care very much about the article in question. I just saw what I thought was an (accidental?) edit by altenmann going against the consensus (as the consensus to change had not been established, and a discussion that included the content was ongoing) yet to be resolved. I did not write that sentence, and I don't (yet) have a strong opinion on it. (As for the content you added: I actually mostly agree with it, but it is still premature in my view) Slomo666 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- We don't have a rule that says that everything must be static during an RfC.
- In my personal opinion all CTOP areas suck. Wikipedia is much more fun outside those areas. Polygnotus (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- The content Altenmann removed is pretty much central to the list's inclusion criteria, (追記) (not "everything" but the dispute itself.
I've been warned in the past that a subject of dispute must be left alone until the dispute is resolved (追記ここまで)(edit: I cannot find this anymore)) and thus also central to the dispute that Altenmann started. They themselves started the RfC and then, while the RfC was ongoing, removed the content (which had been there prior to starting the dispute, but which new respondents would not know when visiting the page to respond to the RfC). - After reviewing the page history, I am more convinced that was wrong. Within ten minutes after my comment citing the explicit inclusion criteria mentioned in the article, the first edit Altenmann makes is to remove the content I cited, (nota bene: I did not write this content, I only referred to it as a naïve feedback request respondent) merely calling this neutral description of the page "wikipedians' editorializing". (Imo completely missing what editorialising is.)
- Honestly, I had not remembered/realised (I think I had heard of this being a CTOP before, but I had never engaged with it, so I must have forgotten) this was a CTOP. Had I thought of that, I would have probably ignored the feedback request or at least not made the initial revert before discussing on the talk page. Slomo666 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
I've been warned in the past that a subject of dispute must be left alone until the dispute is resolved
Do you have a link? That is a misunderstanding. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply- This was months ago, and honestly I don' t recall even which page it was on, but I think it was during one of my first CTOPs discussions. (LGB alliance). I haven't found it yet, so I'll assume I was wrong. Slomo666 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Possibly a misunderstanding/misremembering of this? Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- That might be it, although that case is quite substantively different in that it was about adding something contentious, not about removing something that is necessary for an ungoing discussion. In the case there it merely violated what some editors thought was (still?/ever) the consensus. In this case it is very different: the edit changed the facts/rules while a discussion relying on them was ongoing. (prejudicing the discussion itself, like removing the ground upon which people stand) I briefly thought the warning I'm thinking of might have been on the IAGS page, but I checked and I don't think so anymore. Another page I thought might have been it was one related to an election (Catherine Connelly, but this is much too recent to be what I'm thinking of) or a similar topic. Either way, I'll assume I was wrong unless I happen to find it. Slomo666 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Please ping me if you do, now I am curious. Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Ironically, I just found this comment while clearing my notices. Talk:Donald Trump#c-Simonm223-20260428120800-Anythingyouwant-20260427214700 It suggests the same thing in different words: maintaining a status quo ante until a consensus to change is reached. Slomo666 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Ah that is personal preference, not a "rule". Polygnotus (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- That might be it, although that case is quite substantively different in that it was about adding something contentious, not about removing something that is necessary for an ungoing discussion. In the case there it merely violated what some editors thought was (still?/ever) the consensus. In this case it is very different: the edit changed the facts/rules while a discussion relying on them was ongoing. (prejudicing the discussion itself, like removing the ground upon which people stand) I briefly thought the warning I'm thinking of might have been on the IAGS page, but I checked and I don't think so anymore. Another page I thought might have been it was one related to an election (Catherine Connelly, but this is much too recent to be what I'm thinking of) or a similar topic. Either way, I'll assume I was wrong unless I happen to find it. Slomo666 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Possibly a misunderstanding/misremembering of this? Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- This was months ago, and honestly I don' t recall even which page it was on, but I think it was during one of my first CTOPs discussions. (LGB alliance). I haven't found it yet, so I'll assume I was wrong. Slomo666 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- The content Altenmann removed is pretty much central to the list's inclusion criteria, (追記) (not "everything" but the dispute itself.
You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science , a topic designated as contentious . This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware }} template.
Could you maybe link a google drive folder? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Earthquake light on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot ) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration
[edit ]Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi, I'm unable to find a single source stating that the parties are set to merge on 1 July. Every single source on the merger and new party says that the party has formed and that the old parties have dissolved. You haven't cited any sources saying otherwise. Can you? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
- https://progressiefnederland.nl/nieuws/fusiebesluit-aangenomen-wij-zijn-pro/ is the first result I get and it explicitly states the date on which Progressive Netherlands will be founded is 1 July. This is a primary source of course, but none of the secondary sources I've seen contradict it. Slomo666 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Appreciate it, couldn't find it via Google. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2026 Iran war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot ) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 23:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Clacton (constituency), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names, or the name of the newspaper or organisation, instead of the source's actual author or editor name. If no human author is given, the fields should be removed. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
- Mason, Rowena; editor, Rowena Mason Whitehall (2026年07月07日). "Nigel Farage quits as MP amid scrutiny over finances". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 . Retrieved 2026年07月07日.
{{cite news}}:|last2=has generic name (help)
- Mason, Rowena; editor, Rowena Mason Whitehall (2026年07月07日). "Nigel Farage quits as MP amid scrutiny over finances". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077 . Retrieved 2026年07月07日.
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can Clacton_(constituency)&preloadparams%5b%5d=1363185668"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply