User talk:VeritasVox

Guardian of the Talk Page

                             ____________
                            /            \
                           /   *      *   \
                          /      |  |      \
           ___()()()_____/_______|  |_______\_____()()()___        
                                 |  |
                                 |__|

WOT, NO ARGUMENT?

Talk Page Theme

Please listen while you post, it's very soothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVj0ZTS4WF4

Fan Mail and Letters from Admirers

Lovely conversation with my Number 1 Fan

Grayfell and I haven't edited the Evola article in days, so posting the 3rr warning template on our talk pages was inappropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Okie doke, I've moved on to dispute resolution. Also friendly word of advice, try to seek consensus on the talk page rather than just reverting everyone's edits and don't let your personal opinions influence your editing. VeritasVox (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus has been found, you just didn't accept it. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You can say that all you like, but it simply isn't true. Same as grayfell labelling everyone as 'nazi apologists.' I choose to believe that you genuinely think you're being unbiased, but your politics have blinkered your analysis so much that it is being affected. Go and read Merelli again, and seriously think about whether this is an objective, accurate viewpoint you want to defend this ardently. VeritasVox (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You keep acting like it's just me and Grayfell, but if you'd bother looking at the article before you started editing, you'd also be aware that FreeKnowledgeCreator, Volunteer Marek, Arjayay, and Ogress have been restoring the consensus version; and Seraphim System has expanded upon the consensus version. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

SeraphimSystem and me have talked about it on his userpage and they acknowledge the articles issues, which you don't. You and grayfell are the two most prominent, persistent and unhelpful. Examine seriously your integrity as an editor, the Merelli source, and your role in this dispute. VeritasVox (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, multiple editors have restored the consensus version. This isn't two editors preventing everyone on the internet from fixing some problem, this is a consensus involving the regular editors that the occasional drive-by POV-pusher has a problem with. The only difference this time around is that you've stayed slightly longer. As has been explained multiple times, it is intellectually dishonest to read the relevant parts of Evola in any way besides normalizing rape to the point of justification -- Merelli is just the non-primary source that points that out. Examine whether or not you're here for the encyclopedia's sake or for your own singular agenda. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have attempted to improve the article. This isn't 'nazi apologists' vandalising an article, this is an ongoing dispute involving a political attack by proxy being represented as an objective analysis that you and grayfell in particular are defending until death do you part. The only difference this time around is that I believe in the integrity of this encyclopedia, not promoting my own views or trying to bias the casual reader. As has been explained multiple times, it is intellectually dishonest to read the relevant parts of Merelli in any way besides being a political attack by proxy, not a legitimate analysis -- Merelli is just a political blogger who wanted to further discredit Steve Bannon, she just used Evola as a vehicle for this. Examine whether or not you're here for the encyclopedia's sake or for your own singular agenda. VeritasVox (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone is perfectly entitled to ask what your purpose is here because you've done nothing but fight against the consensus version.

I've spent more than a decade fighting against vandalism, copyright violations, trolls, and sockpuppets; I've written and expanded articles, I've mediated disputes. A cursory glance at my contributions renders your last line an ignorant personal attack that strongly suggests that you're not operating in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You do realise that was a word for word substitution of your post, right? I'm amazed that you either can't recognize that or that you think the same criticisms don't apply to you.

Your time served is irrelevant. Your past edits are irrelevant. Your mediation is irrelevant. Your reputation and view of yourself is irrelevant. None of these things make you any better than me, nor do they give any of your arguments any more weight. Navel-gazing is irrelevant. The accuracy of the information and the validity or lack thereof in the source are all that matter. And if you spend the next hundred years here, it still will not make Merelli any less of a political attack by proxy, nor will it make Julius Evola a nationalist.

Also if you want to talk about your august career as an editor, may I suggest starting a blog rather than using my talkpage? VeritasVox (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you've done nothing except fight against the consensus version. None of that applies to me. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to ask if you're really here to improve the encyclopedia, but it's a personal attack to suggest that I'm not here to help the encyclopedia and just plain stupid to suggest that I'm a singular purpose account. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless this is a pattern and you're also injecting your politics into other articles by relying on political attacks by proxy instead of reliable sources or general bias, in which case you certainly would be not here to help the encyclopedia and broadly speaking a singular purpose account, which is entirely possible - although I certainly won't waste time searching for patterns. If you're going to rely on ad hominems (WP:AOBF WP:IPHUMAN WP:DONTBITE WP:CIVIL) then it's a bit much to accuse others of personal attacks for using your rhetoric against you - or, indeed, to attempt to goad people into personal attacks to undermine their position in a dispute :-) In the same vein, I could also say that all you've done is revert any and all edits to the lede and reject all criticism of Metelli as a source. It's very easy to reduce others opinions to strawmen like this. Anyway, I digress. My position is unchanged, I only care about the integrity of the article and the uselessness of Merelli as a source, and I welcome the opinion of people other than you, me and grayfell in order to improve the article as a whole. VeritasVox (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Technical shizzle and advice

RfC

You need to post a question when you start a RfC. Preferably a couple of neutral sentences that don't bias the question one way or another. Darx9url (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for your continued help. Hopefully I'll get the hang of it all eventually VeritasVox (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the page is a summary of currently open RfCs, and is built by Legobot (talk · contribs), which is a bot. There is no point in editing that page, since Legobot will merely overwrite your edits with the correct version.

To start a RfC, and get it listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies by Legobot, follow the instructions at WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I did manage to figure it out in the end, but thanks for you help all the same. VeritasVox (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Julius Evola shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year from certain pages (Julius Evola) for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 22:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Community topic-ban

You have been indefinitely topic-banned from making any edits related to Nazism, fascism and anti-Semitism, broadly contrued, per community consensus. Violation of this editing restriction may lead to further administrative sanctions. This restriction has been logged at WP:RESTRICT, the relevant log can be found at WP:EDRC. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 19:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that my question about off-site collusion at Talk:Julius Evola was fair, but commenting on the article and what you imagine to be a lack of consensus is a violation of your topic ban. You are not supposed to be making any edit (that means to any page) on any topic relating to Nazism, fascism, or anti-Semitism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop throwing around my name in relation to sock-puppeting accusations that have been repeatedly disproved and seek consensus rather than perpetuating this bizarre adversarialism. I will defend myself against your personal attacks.VeritasVox (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no, they haven;t been "disproved". The last SPI findings were technically ambiguous, and, in any case, CU is not the only method that is used, there's also WP:DUCK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There have already been blocks for sockpuppetry in that area, and you've have to be blind to not see how the sudden appearance of these socks and WP:SPAs after your topic ban looks. Comments by socks don't contribute to consensus and "I agree with (user)" when that user's reasoning has been countered doesn't contribute to consensus. I've made no further implications since your last post to that talk page, but "seek consensus" is still commenting about a topic from which you're banned. Stop commenting about an article you are topic banned from. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I must admit, it does amuse me endlessly that there has been this sudden upswing in interest precisely as I'm banned, and I'm well aware of how it must look. I will simply profess my utter innocense, and remind you that various IP editors were championing that particular edit long before I was. But I digress. Go and preen your feathers about your supposed neutrality and delusions of fighting nazis. No need to examine your motive or compromise - your cause is if utterly pure, and all opposition is a malevolent conspiracy. The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it. VeritasVox (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)