User talk:Delayed Laugh

Reverting without explanation

You have reverted me on Alexei Navalny without explanation. That is not acceptable. I haven't reverted you so there is no edit war. But reverts without a reason are problematic. Avoid that please. Can I please know why did you revert me? I removed Wall Street Journal's quote because it was made by one single source. Calling him Putin's worst nightmare can look as non-neutral even if intention is neutral. Not accusing anyone of course, it just doesn't look good on the article. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a start the sentence didn't say he was "Putin's worst nightmare", it said he was the man Putin fears most. There's nothing non-neutral about that, it's just stating that the two are in opposition to each other. It's not meant to convey any slanted opinion on the matter, it's just there to emphasise that he is the major opposition figure in Russia. That's why the reference to the Wall Street Journal's phrase is used. That's not propoganda, it's there to provide a balanced overview of the political factions that exist in Russia.

That sentence has been a long-standing part of the article and has been there for years without other editors complaining or demanding its removal, so I think its interesting that only now when Navalny has been poisoned that you want to remove it out of the blue. To use your phrase, that 'doesn't look good' because it looks like you are the one being non-neutral by attempting to belittle the man's achievements at a time when he is being heavily discussed in the news. Delayed Laugh (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I forgot what it exactly was. But it's still the same issue. D you or Wall Street Journal have any proof that Putin fears him the most? No of course not. Of course I'm not saying anyone meant it as propaganda, but things can look like that. Which is why one must be careful in wording. Regardless, one website saying Putin fears him most is nit enough nor anything that can be seen as important. It's certainly not notable.

":Whether that sentence has been there for long matters little if it doesn't fulfil notability guidelines. There are often many wrong things in an article most people often don't care about or notice. And you're falsely indicating bad faith on my part when I didn't do that to you or any other editor (I just said looks like propaganda, not that anyone is being non-neutral). You have no reason to blame me. Making up such accusations is wrong.

But also you haven't admitted that you reverting me without any explanation was wrong. I certainly wold never do it to anyone unless it's vandalism. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]