User talk:TradingJihadist

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about addressing the other editor's edits and false claims? They didn't give a good reason to remove content. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the God-Emperor of the article. You're also not a new editor, and you may not posit conspiracies in Wikipedia's voice. Concerns about such phrasing and sourcing are valid objections per WP:BLP, but I expect you know that already. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly rephrased the content to better reflect the sources. By that, I simply mean to have the courtesy to let others know I'm the creator, that's all. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rephrasing helps. You are owed no special courtesy or privilege by creating the article, and you can expect it to be edited, reviewed and altered by other editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I'm not claiming any privileges by being the creator. I'm just letting people in that noticeboard know that I'm the creator. TradingJihadist (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a productive way to do it. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Seth Rich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Seth Rich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polite inquiry

For a new user, you are certainly stirring up quite a mess. What are you trying to do? Have you ever edited here before? --John (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to contribute and write articles. But it seems hard to do that without attracting all sorts of unwanted attention. All I've done is create an article and that seems to have caused a lot of problems for some reason. I've been editing anonymously for years. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does your previous editing include biographies? Do you have any idea what you are doing wrong? --John (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited bios. We all know what the issue is: the topic of the article I created is controversial, and people don't like it. That's it. Nobody has put together good arguments as to why my editing is problematic. If I had made an article on some animal species, nobody would care, and I wouldn't have to get involved on article talk pages, user talk pages, WP space, and so on. I would just write articles and add content in peace. Many editors seem to do nothing but try to be politicians. Like at the ANI thread. They don't want to engage in the substance of my comment because there isn't social-climbing points to be won. They have to pick the 'right' side, which is based not on the logic and substance of arguments, but the reputations and power of the participants. It mirrors real life you can say. Only the politicians who thrive on drama go there to the noticeboard; people who actually write articles stay well clear because it's a draining time-sink. TradingJihadist (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I wonder then why your 30th edit was to an admin noticeboard, and your 45th edit was to raise a complaint at AN/I about an administrator who said your edits were problematic. Your edits are problematic because they run afoul of several of our core values: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:BATTLE come to mind. Which way do you think you will go; adapt your behaviour to our norms, or go down complaining bitterly? --John (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree with my characterisation of the editor body, especially the ones who get involved in the noticeboards? Look at that board and see whether people are talking about the substance of arguments. There is nothing problematic with my edits, and simply churning out acronyms is not going to be persuasive. It does appear to be a tactic that works here, however, because people aren't interested in the substance. I've actually tried to engage people regarding these claims, and nobody can put together a good argument. People simply don't like the fact that I created an article on a controversial topic (which was fine and didn't violate any rules), and later pointed out an admin's misconduct. Has nothing to do with principles/conduct/policy but merely who the participants are. Don't you agree? The end result is that large swathes of the articles here, especially on controversial topics, are garbage. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you know your way around Wikipedia, and that you also have a mature opinion on its (dys)functions. I mean that in the sense that you've clearly given a lot of thought to the way things work around here, and it isn't something you've come up with in the last couple of days. I suspect you're conducting an experiment, and that you feel you've largely achieved what you set out to prove. For what it's worth your original article was too slanted towards the conspiracy side and this has influenced the responses it has gotten. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--John (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Seth Rich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Seth Rich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Seth Rich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Seth Rich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]