User talk:Rebroad

Please leave a new message.

Edit warring

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to alter mentions of what someone says to be merely they claim to say it, you will be blocked. This is the worst kind of weasel wording to imply that someone is incorrect based purely on your opinion. If a source said that then fine, but here we have the person in question saying it and no source to cast doubt on it. From your edit warring on this you’re the one making claims and attempting to twist things to suit some other opinion. If you cannot back up that other reliable sources cast doubt on this belief then you can “claim” it’s only a claim, but it doesn't make it encyclopaedic and has no place in this project. If you continue this line of disruptive editing (and be under no doubt this is disruptive) you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not weasel wording at all. Where in the weasel wording article is such wording mentioned? (I've checked - it isn't). Rebroad (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your portrayal of something someone says they think as being purely a "claim" is weasel wording. You are also "claiming" a doubt as to what they really think with no evidence to back it up. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the existance of lying. Are you claiming there is no evidence that anyone has ever lied? Rebroad (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail:, they've just reverted again. – ².O.^Boxing 13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Uğur Şahin for a period of 1 week for edit warring and disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rebroad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not cross the "bright line" in the "edit war" policy. And even if I am deemed to have done so, my reverts come under the 7th exemption for edit warring, as I was removing unsourced material for a living person. The consensus as it was, goes against Wikipedia policy therefore, and ought to be ignored unless the policy is changed.

Decline reason:

You do not have to cross the bright line of 3RR to be considered to be edit warring, as WP:EW makes clear. You are only blocked from the article itself; please use the talk page to work through any issues related to that article. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. A primary source (which his statement is) does not count as verifyable information. It's classed as original research, and therefore should not be on Wikiepdia. Rebroad (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You didn't specify that Wikipedia policy you're acting according to. I cannot request an unblock if the reasons for blocking are not made clear first. Please can you clarify which policy I breached? Rebroad (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for edit warring and disruption was pretty clear. WP:EW and WP:IDHT should cover it, if you need links to the policy and guideline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your declination of unblock does not address my claim that my edits were exempt from the edit warring policy. Please can you address this. Rebroad (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the policies you are quoting are idiosyncratic and are not supported by the consensus of the editors who have both helped develop and enforce such policies. Your continued reverts and WP:IDHT behaviour are disruptive and the block is in place to prevent more of the same.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this (that they are idiosyncratic, and against consensus). But nevertheless, I am basing my actions on Wikipedia policy as it is currently written. What should be prioritised? Policy or consensus? Rebroad (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I just want to clarify one thing. You basically think the policy means that anything anyone ever says cannot be taken at face value because it's possible they may be lying. So basically we cannot use anything anyone ever says, or have to qualify everything anyone says. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uğur Şahin

Hi Rebroad. When I read the original reference I was concerned as it appear he was saying that when vaccination happened it would be voluntary, which isn't the same as being against compulsory vaccination. However if you read through the updated reference you'll see he explicitly states that he is against it. At this point I suggest you listen to what other are saying and move on, there are always more articles to edits. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that he says he is against it. I am saying this him saying he is against it does not equate to him being against it. It's NPOV to state he says he's against it. It's a POV to claim he is against it, given this cannot easily be proven, as he could be lying. Rebroad (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have closed your ANI thread as a favor to you, to reduce the likelihood that you be blocked more broadly or for longer. You need to cut it out. --JBL (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to this "favour" - please undelete it, or tell me how I am supposed to request a review of this administrator. This needs to be addressed, IMHO. Rebroad (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]