User talk:Simonm223

You've been lobstered!

Regarding this exchange, and because we haven't found any trout yet this year, I hereby whack you with this lobster. Fill yer boots, bud! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinchy and delicious. (And hey, Mr. Seafood is just down the block.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you, it's MR (initials) Seafood, not Mister Seafood. I don't know what the MR is though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And here I've been calling it Mister Seafood like a chump for a year! Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You can add your own self-awareness template now

See {{Ds/aware}} - goes on the top of your talk page. I did have something I wanted to chat with you about - if you feel up to emailing me from my talk page, please do. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, Allegations of foreign interference

Allegations = a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Therefore, an allegation made by RT or Sputnik need not be a ‘reliable source’; it merely needs to have been made. Unless the heading is changed to "Facts of foreign interference", I'm going to return those paragraphs you removed. Water-n-Sky (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As non WP:RSes, their allegations are WP:UNDUE any mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to find allegations of foreign interference that are WP:DUE mention I suggest looking in the Chinese press rather than Russian pot-stirrers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, are you saying that, because 3rd party views (like the Russian news media corps) are not important to tense political situations (like the HK event), they should not be mentioned in such articles? Am I understanding you correct like this or not? If not, then can you please explain it to me further, so I can learn and improve when editing other articles that might be politically sensitive in the future? Thanks in advance. Water-n-Sky 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that RT and Sputnik have a reputation, as outlets, of communicating disinformation. As such all they're useful for as sources is for what they, as bodies, say about a situation. And the opinion of two Russian tabloids is not significant enough to be due coverage in an article on Wikipedia except possibly one about the outlets in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have two options: 1) RT and Sputnik are the source of the "allegation" in which case they're undue because they are not a significant player in international politics. 2) RT and Sputnik are reporting allegations made elsewhere, in which case, they're unreliable because of a history of misleading reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you mean. Thank you!Water-n-Sky 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

NBC article on Epoch Times

You might find this article very interesting [1]. It goes into detailed coverage of ET from former employees, and its relationship with Trump. I've added some stuff into the article already.--PatCheng (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It honestly doesn't surprise me. Epoch Times has been a right-wing propaganda rag for years. I mean it's basically the Washington Times for the Chinese community. That it would go all-in on pro-Trump agitation, especially conspiracizing about the "deep state" is like... FryShocked.gif levels of of-course. It certainly speaks toward my long held opinion that the Epoch Times cannot be treated as a reliable source within Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Listen, no matter what you think of me, the facts are that the evidence IS in the media, with video's showing clearly that a mob of men dressed in white attacked unsuspecting protesters. :The user is placing Chinese propaganda in this article time and time again, while others rolled it back.

The user is claiming to have looked for evidence, but clearly did not.

It is an edit war that is forming, but for sure it is vandalism.

ANd it is absolutely not unbiassed.

All of this users edits are about adding Chinese propaganda to articles about the demonstrations.

Are you a mod, or can you get a mod involved?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You accused another editor of being a paid operative of a state. That is a serious accusation. See WP:PAID. As you have provided on evidence that they are, in fact, a paid operative of China, it's one that would fall under WP:NPA - which i already cautioned you about. Furthermore Wikipedia doesn't have mods. It's not a forum. But Wikipedia does have admins, and if you continue to take this combative approach to other editors, you may find out that they have little patience for this sort of disruptive behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I may have acted inappropriately in speaking my mind. I will apologise after typing this message.

But, no matter what you think of me, we dee an official.

On the Dutch wiki, we call it a mod. If it is called an admin, fine by me.

This user is saying to have checked a certain fact and that it is nowhere in the media, but, as my sources have shown, I picked 4 randomly, a 10 second search reveals a whole lot of sources showing the fact.

At the same time, the user is claiming the opposite is true, while live video footage shows it is a lie.

The user claims to have checked this, which is shown by my sources to be a lie (I can't assume good faith over that). That is vandalism.

On top of that, I see that the edits reveal an editwar; repeatedly adding things that others (not me) roll back, because it is proven to be untrue.

And last, but certainly not least, the things this user has added, are all proven to be Chinese propaganda. I can supply evidence of this.

And, in fact, the only things that this user has added are Chinese propaganda.

Please, tell me where to contact an official. It is needed.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that you stop with these long, rambling complaints about a user upon whom you've fixated. While it's not block circumvention for you to be editing enwiki while blocked on nlwiki, the fact of the matter is that you've a recent history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and having been blocked for this on nlwiki, you've been doing the same thing here, and it's becoming disruptive. Furthermore, your user page on nlwiki implies you're a former wikipedian who has come back, so I'd suggest it'd be wise to disclose your previous account on your user page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not why I was blocked. I asked a user that was trolling to stop trolling me. I called that user a troll when doing so. That insult was the reason for the block. While that person was ruining the whole feeling. But whatever. I'll start again and I'll show you that showing facts will not convince this user. If I am wrong and this user will change, I will be happy. If not, there is reason to be worried.

Another thing, you have been splitting up the article about the 2019 demonstrations. Where did the part go about China's media action? Last historical edit I saw it in is here. Will you point me to it?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the kind suggestions. Hope sweet pastry is your thing! :) Ltyl (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A cup of tea to go with you baklava. Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

article for deletion discussion

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is on-going. I published the original version of the page. I thought you might be interested in commenting on it. Cheers. Ltyl (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, Simon. This user seems to have a big grudge against you, see contribs. Do you know whose sock they might be? Bishonen | talk 18:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

Almost certainly HughD or a copycat trying to ape HughD. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

They started up that pattern of using socks to post messages insulting me in random low-traffic articles after I got their 72bikers sock shut down some time ago. They began a protracted campaign of harassment that eventually, thanks to some herculean effort on the part of Wikipedia admins simmered down into, well, this foolishness. It's basically whack-a-mole at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bishonen: Yeah, that's HughD. Sometimes this screed is directed at Legacypac instead, but it's always the same "I'm a troll, hurr hurr" waste of time. WP:RBI is prescribed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, good. I already indeffed the sock, and it hardly seems worth adding tags and stuff — WP:RBI, as you say, Ivanvector. Hopefully I'll remember the pattern from now on. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

Yeah, if you see that nonsense there's no need to even tell me. I know HughD doesn't like me and doesn't let go of grudges, but I'm happy to forget about them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

community self-defense

Hello, we had briefly discussed the topic of community self-defense ... and you had mentioned possibly adding it to the AfC requests.
I just came across this, which is of some relevance: Grupos de Autodefensa Comunitaria
So I am guessing there are similar pages about groups like this, or regional methodology, etc., just not yet an overall page that discusses the topic more broadly. Anyhow, thought that link could be helpful. If I see anything else I will post it here for you to take a look at, if you'd like. Cheers. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's great. You might want to consider bringing it up at Wikiproject Socialism too. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

An AfD is not a PROD.

"An AfD is not a PROD. As such, no editor can unilaterally just remove the notice. Nor would that, in fact, prevent the AfD for proceeding. If you have evidence this individual crosses the WP:BLP1E bar and hits WP:GNG then you should present that evidence at the AfD." ^ Can you tell me how to present the evidence at the AfD? Thank you in advance. Water-n-Sky (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Click the link to the AfD discussion in the AfD tag at the top of the page and provide links to evidence demonstrating that the subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I've done a cursory review and I don't believe they do; as all their notoriety is connected to a single event (the meeting with the Demositso leaders) and we actually have a very specific policy on that WP:BLP1E which I strongly recommend you read prior to participating at the AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

2019OutlaweD

Dear Simonm223,

2019OutlaweD has asked me to declare that my contribution on https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=912776208 was faulty and incorrect. Although I do not agree with him, I have made a few mistakes. I am writing you this message to stop a long lasting discussion via email.

- The victim of his assaults made only a few small changes to 'his' article. He didn't revert him. - He didn't say all moderators , but all users who confronted him with his behaviour were influenced by Chinese propaganda. - I have blocked him indefinetely on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I was wrong. There was no support for such a block and I was obliged to unblock him. At this moment, he has been blocked again until 19-9-2019 because of disruptive behaviour.

He will attempt to get unblocked on the English Wikipedia, but I would like to advise against it. His 'battlegroud' behaviour remains unchanged.

Sorry for bothering you again, Floortje Désirée (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's no problem. I'm quite happily not an admin so I won't be in a position to block or unblock him, but of course I support keeping that sort of battleground behaviour off Wikipedia. Thank you for all your help and for keeping me informed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments about some of your comments

Simonm223, I wanted to post this here rather than on any talk page. Having worked both on the same side and other side of issues in the past I've found you to be very reasonable to work with. That's the part where I butter you up before saying the negative thing. I think comments such as, "We're already giving this right-wing talking point..." [[2]] and [[3]] are problematic. I don't mean uncivil but instead they suggest that we should ignore sources or self censor because we don't like something rather than because the principle of the matter is wrong. I'm certain in the past I've seen (and least from my POV) where you accepted some thing (material in or out, I no longer recall) based on the logical principle of the argument. I wish I could recall when, I'm sure it was gun related, because at that moment it became clear to me that even if you didn't like something you would accept it if the principle was sound. I think in these two examples you are suggesting that we should censor based on some sort of fear that readers might get contaminated with an ideology with which you disagree. This probably isn't how you see it and like I said, I've seen you act on principle enough to always give you the benefit of the doubt. Just thought I would share my thoughts and do it here rather than on any article talk page. Springee (talk)

Honestly, this issue is the most extreme case of WP:BLUDGEON I've ever seen and I'm getting frustrated. We've already had a POV fork article, an AfD, an appeal of the AfD, a subsequent request for undeletion and now people demanding that the shape of her genitals absolutely must be in the article. Frankly I'm about at the point of going to Arbcom over this. My frustration is that it has been decided at length that this information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The people who demand its inclusion are just hoping to outlast any opposition. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with your positions but I do get your frustration. I've been there (and might be there now ;) ). Anyway, keep up the clean fight. Springee (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, small bone that I now want to pick. I noticed that you restored this external link to a personal blog [[4]]. I'm not sure it's logically consistent to say we can't cite TTAG for a non-controversial technical fact yet we should link to a blog that is an aggregation point for stuff critical of the article topic. If the criticism are due they would be in the article. Springee (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a see-also external link; it's not being used as a source for anything. But if it bugs you, please feel free to remove on the grounds it's a blog and I won't edit war over it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk page discussion. I don't want to revert you, even if we disagree I think a discussion with you will be productive. Anyway, I've probably pestered you enough. Take care. Springee (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine. I've removed it. Also removed the random Youtube video. That is inappropriate for precisely the same reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

Personally I don't believe my edit is disruptive or controversial, yet only a minor rectification one. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China to Mainland China and by restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation. Neither of these things are appropriate in this context. Furthermore, when challenged on an edit, you are supposed to go to article talk rather than edit warring it back in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I will go over your arguments:

1. You claimed my edit

   had a substantial impact on WP:NPOV by changing China

   . Frankly I too suggest you reading WP:NC-CN before making any assertions on any China-related articles. Back to the article itself, the context is "the rest of the PRC", not "PRC". I don't reckon you can't see the difference here.
2. Regarding my "restoring lines that implied Hong Kong is treated, internationally, as a distinct nation", I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my intention. That HK should go under the name "Hong Kong, China" is explicitly stipulated in Article 151 of the Basic Law. Therefore, I don't consider my edits to be wrong under any circumstance.
3. Since my edit is only challenged by you, so I straightforwardly go to your talk page. Hopefully it's not wrong. --45.125.2.20 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)