W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Slomo666

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Slomo666/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->


Note on BLPPROD



You can only use the {{tl|BLPPROD}} template if there are no sources at all cited in the article, whether the sources are reliable or not. See WP:BLPPROD ↗ for more info.

I would recommend putting the normal {{tl|PROD}} template on the page instead if you think it should be deleted. (A PROD template can be placed on the page even if a BLPPROD template was already removed, since they're separate processes.) ApexParagon (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads-up. If you'll see, basically all the references (only 4 by the way, for a BLP article!) are by organisations that are not impartial and which users have deemed unreliable. My initial plan was to have a discussion on the talk page or the RS noticeboard about removing the references and the text they are used to support ASAP, but I came to the conclusion this would essentially blank the article, which is how I came to the decision to instead use the BLPProd, assuming the fact none of the sources are reliable, and could be removed, would mean the same as the article not having any. If you say I'm wrong, then I take your word. However, I think now I cannot PROD either, because one editor on the talk page seems to clearly disagree with me on the notability, and somehow also on the reliability of (one of) the sources. (Which I think they are clearly wrong about. The website is called "Hezbollah.org"... and operated by a US lobby group.) I have made a post on that talk page now proposing deletion, so if no one responds negatively to that (which I fear will not be the case) I will dare and try the PROD route. Otherwise, this will probably take a considerable amount of time. A waste in my view. The article's sources were all added back in january 2025. There's been no genuine effort to improve the sourcing. Slomo666 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::In that case it would be best to nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ↗. ApexParagon (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Nevermind, I will try my luck with the PROD and see where it goes since the person I thought would object seems to care more about the claim of the death of the subject being wrong. Thanks for the advice. Slomo666 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the parameter!



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARima_Hassan&oldid=prev&diff=1348870218 <span style=><small><span style="color:#f71;font-weight:500">''Nu''</span><span style="color:#85f;font-weight:500">''gs''</span> &#124; T·C ↗ &#124; <span style="color:#95b">(they/she)</span> ↗</small></span> 01:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

3RR



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''&mdash;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&mdash;whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time&mdash;counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash; if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> Polygnotus (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the warning. I had not considered it an edit war at the time. I'll try to leave this alone. I don't even care very much about the article in question. I just saw what I thought was an (accidental?) edit by altenmann going against the consensus (as the consensus to change had not been established, and a discussion that included the content was ongoing) yet to be resolved. I did not write that sentence, and I don't (yet) have a strong opinion on it. (As for the content you added: I actually mostly agree with it, but it is still premature in my view) Slomo666 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::We don't have a rule that says that everything must be static during an RfC.
::In my personal opinion all CTOP areas suck. Wikipedia is much more fun outside those areas. Polygnotus (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::The content Altenmann removed is pretty much central to the list's inclusion criteria, <ins>(not "everything" but the dispute itself. <del>I've been warned in the past that a subject of dispute must be left alone until the dispute is resolved</del>(edit: I cannot find this anymore))</ins> and thus also central to the dispute that Altenmann started. They themselves started the RfC and then, while the RfC was ongoing, removed the content (which had been there prior to starting the dispute, but which new respondents would not know when visiting the page to respond to the RfC).
:::After reviewing the page history, I am more convinced that was wrong. Within ten minutes after my comment citing the explicit inclusion criteria mentioned in the article, the first edit Altenmann makes is to remove the content I cited, (nota bene: I did not write this content, I only referred to it as a naïve feedback request respondent) merely calling this neutral description of the page "wikipedians' editorializing". (Imo completely missing what editorialising is.)
:::Honestly, I had not remembered/realised (I think I had heard of this being a CTOP before, but I had never engaged with it, so I must have forgotten) this was a CTOP. Had I thought of that, I would have probably ignored the feedback request or at least not made the initial revert before discussing on the talk page. Slomo666 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I've been warned in the past that a subject of dispute must be left alone until the dispute is resolved}} Do you have a link? That is a misunderstanding. Polygnotus (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::This was months ago, and honestly I don' t recall even which page it was on, but I think it was during one of my first CTOPs discussions. (LGB alliance). I haven't found it yet, so I'll assume I was wrong. Slomo666 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Possibly a misunderstanding/misremembering of this ↗? Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That might be it, although that case is quite substantively different in that it was about adding something contentious, not about removing something that is necessary for an ungoing discussion. In the case there it merely violated what some editors thought was (still?/ever) the consensus. In this case it is very different: the edit changed the facts/rules while a discussion relying on them was ongoing. (prejudicing the discussion itself, like removing the ground upon which people stand) I briefly thought the warning I'm thinking of might have been on the IAGS page, but I checked and I don't think so anymore. Another page I thought might have been it was one related to an election (Catherine Connelly, but this is much too recent to be what I'm thinking of) or a similar topic. Either way, I'll assume I was wrong unless I happen to find it. Slomo666 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Please ping me if you do, now I am curious. {{smiley}} Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Ironically, I just found this comment while clearing my notices. Talk:Donald Trump#c-Simonm223-20260428120800-Anythingyouwant-20260427214700 ↗ It suggests the same thing in different words: maintaining a status quo ante until a consensus to change is reached. Slomo666 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah that is personal preference, not a "rule". Polygnotus (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' pseudoscience ↗ and fringe science ↗''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics <em>procedures</em>, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> Polygnotus (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Here from the 2026 israeli opinion polls talk page



Could you maybe link a google drive folder? Ozerkatanmeod (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment



48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested &#32;at '''Talk:Earthquake light'''&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗.</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> <small>(replacing <span class="plainlinks">Yapperbot ↗</span>)</small> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 19:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration ↗



Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Progressive Netherlands "1 July 2026" date of founding



Hi, I'm unable to find a single source stating that the parties are set to merge on 1 July. Every single source on the merger and new party says that the party has formed and that the old parties have dissolved. You haven't cited any sources saying otherwise. Can you? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:https://progressiefnederland.nl/nieuws/fusiebesluit-aangenomen-wij-zijn-pro/ is the first result I get and it explicitly states the date on which Progressive Netherlands will be founded is 1 July. This is a primary source of course, but none of the secondary sources I've seen contradict it. Slomo666 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
::Appreciate it, couldn't find it via Google. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment



48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested &#32;at '''Talk:2026 Iran war'''&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗.</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> <small>(replacing <span class="plainlinks">Yapperbot ↗</span>)</small> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 01:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment



48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested &#32;at '''Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube'''&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗.</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 23:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Clacton (constituency) ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Clacton (constituency) ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Slomo666&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Clacton (constituency)}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1363185668 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)