Jump to content

User talk:TurboSuperA+

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

[edit]

[1] [2]

Active talk page discussions

[edit]

edot war

[edit]

Please read wp:editwar and WP:OUNUS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, you are reverting what has been there for nearly a month. If you wish to make a change, seek consensus on the talk page. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:3rr and it was objected to almost a month ago, and thus should not have been in the aritckle per WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS say the Kursk operation has ended, and they say it ended it Ukrainian defeat. You're contradicting consensus among WP:RS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS doesn't apply here, I suggest you read what it actually says. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest. Spend more time reading the WP:RS links provided, rather than copy-pasting templates. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:v a source must say it, in their words. So they must say "russian victory" (or similar). This is why I have my doubts as to how well supported this claim of Russian vicotry is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are at it again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well if you are reverted, YOU are expected to get consensus for the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are reverting something that can be sourced to four WP:RS. You need to have a better reason to remove it other than you disagreeing with the statements. TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did I said it was undue try reading wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.)
Four WP:RS reported on her statements, it is WP:DUE. TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more than 4 RS in the world. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does something have to be reported on by every RS on the planet to be wp:due? TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a lot of them if the person is just one politician. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4 is a lot. TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, 4 is less then 1%. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have been warned by someone else, having repeatedly engaged in edit warring in Contentious topic, so now I think it's time to ask you to read wp:disruptive. Yes, this is now a warning, as you continue to refuse to obey WP:OUNUS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the magic percentage? TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note (as well) that if (indeed) Lev Golinkin had been removed by consensus before you have now pushed over 3RR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information backed by WP:RS is not a revert. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A revert is ANY edit that reverts a previous edit. If you have added back previously removed content, that is a revert. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have added back previously removed content, that is a revert
I didn't, I wrote the paragraph myself. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content is what he said, that is what was removed. As you seem to be fully aware. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're telling me what I know and don't know? The absolute gall on you. How can I be expected to know every single bit of information added and removed in the history of the article? TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert, or i WILL REPORT YOU. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the discussion where there was consensus that Lev Golinkin's statements should not be in the article. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't report you, I assumed you were not aware of previous discussions [[1]] [[2]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in those discussions that Lev Golinkin's statements should not be in the article. If he is so problematic, then another editor will remove his statements from the article. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it has been removed previously, and you are now aware of previous discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first discussion is from 2022, it predates the articles I cited, which were from 2023. So that discussion is not relevant to this case.
In the second link, I see editors arguing that he can be included also:
I don't really see anyone saying he shouldn't be included. I see discussion of him, but no hard conclusions. Discussion is part of the collaborative process, and the existence of a discussion does not mean the content should be removed on sight. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made you aware of your error; it is down to you now to learn from it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no error. TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

[edit]

You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So do you: To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. TurboSuperA+(connect) 12:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 15th of April you replied 6 times in one thread, about the same as every other user (all altogether) 6 times the day before, and 4 times (today). All in the same thread. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to discuss and reply to an editor? If an editor and myself are having a back-and-forth discussion, that's not bludgeoning. Your main contribution to every thread is a bludgeoning accusation, sometimes you make it more than once. It is not helpful. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have, what you do not need to do is say the same thing 5 times, to different users. But yiou have been warned, so there is nothing more to discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"what you do not need to do is say the same thing 5 times, to different users"
Feel free to provide diffs, otherwise you're just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think the back-and-forth with me should be taken as bludgeoning Placeholderer (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&oldid=1286753403"