User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2021/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
December 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Syrian Kurdistan and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan) for disruptive editing.
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 ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)- Special:Diff/997015925 SD, you are simply refusing to stop arguing that non-scholarly sources are "reliable". You have far too much experience to be making this mistake once it's been explained to you, which it has multiple times, that on this contentious article, only recent scholarly work is a good-enough source. I really didn't want to make this block, but the POV-pushing has just become really problematic. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I was discussing something historical regarding the 1920s and Ottoman Empire, I have an old CIA source, why cant I discuss this at the talkpage? Who decided that "only recent scholarly" work is a good-enough source? If it is my opinion that the CIA source is good why cant i express that at the talkpage? Why are you shutting down normal discussion between editors? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- At a contentious article, it's pretty typical to require only the very best of sources. As Levivich has pointed out on numerous occasions, we have large amounts of recent peer-reviewed scholarly work, which is the gold standard for a reliable source. Trying to argue that a 1946 primary source is RS is just absurd on its face. I'm really sorry. I didn't want to issue this block. I just really don't know what more appropriate action there is to deal with this level of WP:IDHT. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, It is my opinion that the CIA source is a very good source, I have the right to express my view concerning the source at the talkpage. The source showed that other claims inside the article was historically inaccurate. Why cant I discuss that at the talkpage? If there was consensus reached at the talkpage that the source was not good, then I wouldn't be using it. Look at the lead now, the majority supported the new lead, I was against it, they changed it to the new lead, did you see me change it back? No, I accepted that the majority supported the new lead. There was no problem at all, no disruption, no edit warring. The article is calm. This is how you are supposed to build and improve an article, discuss different views and sources at the talkpage. And now you come and block me for having a normal discussion at the talkape. Is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Look this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds, there is a one sided purge/witch Hunt. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please discuss at WP:RSN. Feel free to ping me and (with apologies) Levivich, CaptainEek, and Girth Summit. —valereee (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, what am I supposed to do at WP:RSN? I was discussing the CIA source at the "Syrian Kurdistan" talkpage with Levivich in a civilized manner when you blocked me, and now you want me to discuss it at RSN? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, You can use Template:Noping in situations like these ;) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, good advice, block someone for no sensible reason and then run away. Good advise from one admin to another. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, you're supposed (if you wish) to discuss the source in a forum where the question of whether a 1946 CIA report is a reliable source isn't disruptive. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, Why cant I discuss its reliability at the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage with Levivich? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thats not what I meant, what I meant was: valereee pinged me, levivich, and GS, and apologized for doing so, because it seems clear that valereee just meant to link our names, not ping us. But linking a name = ping. So there is a template that allows the name to be linked, but not pinged. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, because at SK, in my opinion, it's disruptive. At RSN, IMO, it's not. If you take it to RSN and folks there agree with you that of course a 1946 CIA report is completely reliable for things other than what the 1946 CIA report says, you can totally ask to be rightfully unblocked and bring that 1946 CIA report back to support assertions about what was actually happening or not happening in Syria in 1946. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, isn't the point of a talkpage to discuss things? If the consensus at the SK talkpage or RSN was that the CIA source was no good then I would have accepted it, the same way I accepted the new lead. So what is the problem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, the problem is that bringing up unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source that other editors then have to explain again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again is not usable because it isn't recent scholarly work which is what both the contentious nature of the article and the ample supply of actual recent scholarly work requires is wasting other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, when was there consensus that the CIA source is unusable? or that only recent scholarly work is allowed in the article? There is currently several old sources in the article from 1890, 1876, 1848 and 1882. Not one single person has objected to these old sources in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, it depends on the assertion being supported. For highly disputed assertions, it's completely reasonable to require the highest level of reliability. I haven't looked at the content those sources are supporting, but maybe it's noncontroversial. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, The sources from 1890 and 1876 both refer to "Western Kurdistan" as being a place outside of Syria. Which are in direct conflict with several of the "recent scholar sources" you say are the only acceptable sources for the article. I used the CIA source in a similar way, pointing out that this older source say something different then some newer sources. There is nothing wrong with having a discussion concerning this and presenting both historical and modern views. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as I've said, I don't want to get into content, but if you think the sources aren't good enough for whatever they're supporting, that's something that would be reasonable to bring up once you're able to edit there again. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, but that's EXACTLY what I did at the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage [1], and you indefinitely blocked me for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- A 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything except an assertion of what the report itself says, and even then we'd prefer a secondary source. I'm not sure how I can explain that any more clearly than I already have, and again I'm surprised that I have to explain it even once to someone with 20K edits. The very fact you are refusing to understand this most basic of policies when you're dealing with a subject you clearly feel very strongly about is further evidence that you were POV-pushing. I'm sure it's not intentional, you clearly are a well-intentioned and valued contributor, but that's what is happening: you care too deeply about this subject to be able to overcome your biases.
- There are six million articles on Wikipedia that you are free to edit. There is one where you cannot. You are also free to request you be unblocked; I have zero objection to any other admin adjusting or removing the p-block from that article if they feel it's appropriate. You are also free to open a discussion of the block at AN. —valereee (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, the reliability of the CIA report can be discussed at the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage or RSN and if there is consensus against it, I would accept it. There was no reason for you to block me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, but that's EXACTLY what I did at the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage [1], and you indefinitely blocked me for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as I've said, I don't want to get into content, but if you think the sources aren't good enough for whatever they're supporting, that's something that would be reasonable to bring up once you're able to edit there again. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, The sources from 1890 and 1876 both refer to "Western Kurdistan" as being a place outside of Syria. Which are in direct conflict with several of the "recent scholar sources" you say are the only acceptable sources for the article. I used the CIA source in a similar way, pointing out that this older source say something different then some newer sources. There is nothing wrong with having a discussion concerning this and presenting both historical and modern views. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, it depends on the assertion being supported. For highly disputed assertions, it's completely reasonable to require the highest level of reliability. I haven't looked at the content those sources are supporting, but maybe it's noncontroversial. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, when was there consensus that the CIA source is unusable? or that only recent scholarly work is allowed in the article? There is currently several old sources in the article from 1890, 1876, 1848 and 1882. Not one single person has objected to these old sources in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, the problem is that bringing up unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source after unusable source that other editors then have to explain again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again is not usable because it isn't recent scholarly work which is what both the contentious nature of the article and the ample supply of actual recent scholarly work requires is wasting other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, isn't the point of a talkpage to discuss things? If the consensus at the SK talkpage or RSN was that the CIA source was no good then I would have accepted it, the same way I accepted the new lead. So what is the problem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, because at SK, in my opinion, it's disruptive. At RSN, IMO, it's not. If you take it to RSN and folks there agree with you that of course a 1946 CIA report is completely reliable for things other than what the 1946 CIA report says, you can totally ask to be rightfully unblocked and bring that 1946 CIA report back to support assertions about what was actually happening or not happening in Syria in 1946. —valereee (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, I was mostly apologizing for giving SD permission to ping you to RSN without your permission. :D —valereee (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- SD, you're supposed (if you wish) to discuss the source in a forum where the question of whether a 1946 CIA report is a reliable source isn't disruptive. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, good advice, block someone for no sensible reason and then run away. Good advise from one admin to another. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, It is my opinion that the CIA source is a very good source, I have the right to express my view concerning the source at the talkpage. The source showed that other claims inside the article was historically inaccurate. Why cant I discuss that at the talkpage? If there was consensus reached at the talkpage that the source was not good, then I wouldn't be using it. Look at the lead now, the majority supported the new lead, I was against it, they changed it to the new lead, did you see me change it back? No, I accepted that the majority supported the new lead. There was no problem at all, no disruption, no edit warring. The article is calm. This is how you are supposed to build and improve an article, discuss different views and sources at the talkpage. And now you come and block me for having a normal discussion at the talkape. Is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- At a contentious article, it's pretty typical to require only the very best of sources. As Levivich has pointed out on numerous occasions, we have large amounts of recent peer-reviewed scholarly work, which is the gold standard for a reliable source. Trying to argue that a 1946 primary source is RS is just absurd on its face. I'm really sorry. I didn't want to issue this block. I just really don't know what more appropriate action there is to deal with this level of WP:IDHT. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I was discussing something historical regarding the 1920s and Ottoman Empire, I have an old CIA source, why cant I discuss this at the talkpage? Who decided that "only recent scholarly" work is a good-enough source? If it is my opinion that the CIA source is good why cant i express that at the talkpage? Why are you shutting down normal discussion between editors? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for bringing a CIA source to the Syrian Kurdistan talkpage. I should be allowed to bring sources to talkpages and discuss them without getting blocked. There was no consensus anywhere that we can not use the source, if there was I would have followed that consensus. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
- Dammit, broke the markup and don't know how to fix it! Hm. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Rigscapes
Whose sock? Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dont know, hes using a proxy. This has happened before, several times. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a favorite tactic for Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis, but the tone isn't quite right. Can you point me to a predecessor? Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was several years ago, some of them had names revealing personal info or offensive names so their usernames were deleted. The account that made this edit at 14 October 2010:[2], might have been one of them, don't remember as it was a long time ago. But it happened several times including mass reverts of my edits in the exact same way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK, it could be Grawp or Grawp-adjacent. I'm going to wait and see what, if anything, they do next. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was several years ago, some of them had names revealing personal info or offensive names so their usernames were deleted. The account that made this edit at 14 October 2010:[2], might have been one of them, don't remember as it was a long time ago. But it happened several times including mass reverts of my edits in the exact same way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a favorite tactic for Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis, but the tone isn't quite right. Can you point me to a predecessor? Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021: Arbitration
I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thats a violation of your topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Arbitration requests
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Responding to requests, [t]here may be no threaded discussion (that is, comments in any section but your own) on any arbitration request. Consequently, I have moved your comments to your own section. Please remember that these pages are not for discussion but solely to present evidence why Arbitration should or should not be necessary. Furthermore, please remember that casting aspersions (such as claiming coordinated edit warring without evidence) is not acceptable. Regards SoWhy 09:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okey, I changed my comment. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Kurds and Kurdistan case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)