User talk:109.159.88.9

SPA

I suggest you read wp:spa, right now you seem obsessed with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on one article. All you have done is argued me round to a 180 degree flip based on your arguing the toss.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you on about? All I have done is posted on an article talk page, pointing out that the article concerned is making negative implications regarding a source, without citing anything to back it up. I'm not interested in any 'great wrongs'. Just the small one of an article (which I'd never seen before seeing it referred to on WP:ANI yesterday) saying something that isn't properly sourced for what it says. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the talk page section above (As I asked) you would have seen why, as I said it was a compromise (and yes that talk page thread had a source that said she was not a Christian).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article readers are not supposed to have to look at talk pages to find sources. And if you want to discuss the article content, please do so on the talk page, not here. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:not, and wp:disruption. You may take this as a warning, your attitude violates wp:battleground, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yes you may take this as a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only one demonstrating a battleground mentality here is you. I have tried to engage in a civil discussion regarding a self-evident problem with an article, and have met with nothing but obtuseness and accusations of bad faith. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had agreed we might be able to change it until you took issue with what I had said, and so forced me to look at the old discussion again to see why we had said it (you argued me round to opposing your suggestion, I had not opposed you). I have explained to you now why we said what we did, there is no more to be said. This is my last word here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to P. K. Rosy and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Red Panda 25 15:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My editing would be a darned sight happier if I wasn't met with immediate hostility: see above. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like you were doing it for no reason - the phrasing had to be changed. Not trying to add to the conflict but I put in my view on it. Red Panda 25 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This clearly needs third-party input, since we clearly aren't getting anywhere otherwise. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Killing of João Alberto Silveira Freitas

Hello. Whilst I disagree with your recent edits to Killing of João Alberto Silveira Freitas, I'll wait for someone else to revert them as I don't want to get into an edit war. However, I just want to warn you that any further reversions you make to Killing of João Alberto Silveira Freitas will be a violation of 3RR as the content you have been removing is not "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" and will be treated as such. Regards Eyebeller (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, violations of WP:BLP policy are explicitly excluded from WP:3RR, as I have already noted, I don't need to be told this. And if anyone seriously wishes to argue that there is no potential bias involved in describing someone as 'involved' in the manner the article currently does, I'd like to see how. In discussions either on the talk page or at WP:ANI. Why is everyone so reluctant to do so? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a blatant BLP violation and the content you have removed is not "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" (as stated at WP:3RR). Therefore, any further reverts you make to Killing of João Alberto Silveira Freitas within the next 24 hours put you at risk of a block. Eyebeller (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this either at WP:ANI (I assume you have seen the existing thread), or on the talk page. I have no intention of getting into a debate about it here. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.