User talk:Hayden41

August 2024

Hi Hayden41! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Stefan Molyneux several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Stefan Molyneux, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undid my edit about Molyneux being on the Joe Rogan Experience, since he was invited there three times.

https://www.jrepodcast.com/guest/stefan-molyneux/

And why did you judge it irrelevant to mention that he is an author, since there is a section about how one of his books was reviewed.

Explain the logic behind your decisions. Hayden41 (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did you decide that I was the one guilty of "edit warring", and not user Slatersteven?

His edit was unjustified. Hayden41 (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I will use the dispute resolution options, since it is clear that we are at a standstill, and you are clearly biased. Hayden41 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Stefan Molyneux, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the appearances he had on the Joe Rogan Experience?

Because I can't see any reliable source for his appearances on RT, Info Wars or Press TV either, but somehow these have not been removed. Hayden41 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His appearances are on the Joe Rogan podcast itself. The Joe Rogan Experience is not a reliable source for the Joe Rogan Experience?

How does that even make sense? Hayden41 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hayden41, just letting you know you're well into edit-warring territory on the Stefan Molyneux article. It would be better to discuss your proposed changes in detail on the article talkpage than to repeating adding slightly modified versions to the article itself. I appreciate some of the material you'd like to add seems uncontroversial but most biographical content needs reliable sourcing and that cannot be to self-published sources, blogs or wikipedia mirror sites. There's some useful links on reliable sourcing in the template from Ixocactus above.

If you think your sources are already good enough but other editors simply don't agree, you can also get additional input and consensus at the Dispute resolution noticeboard or the Reliable sources noticeboard. Hopefully there are are indeed reliable sources for the content you'd like to add, and it can then be included on the article page. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Stefan Molyneux. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You sir are dishonest. is a personal attack. You can say that an editor is mistaken without saying that they are being dishonest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not remove material or otherwise disrupt the article to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people who are removing my edits are the one who are disruptive.

Prove me wrong. Hayden41 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The warning above was about your edits, and personal attacks, like the one immediately above, are disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no personal attacks.

People are removing my edits for no good reason. They can't defend their decisions. Hayden41 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The clear personal attacks are here and here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person thinks the Joe Rogan Experience is a "minor show", which clearly makes him unable to make a reasonable decision about it. Hayden41 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAce you read wp:npa yet? Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You and I shouldn't be communicating. Hayden41 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the slippery slope. It could just as readily be argued that you should be disqualified from the discussion for trying put podcasts on the same level as broadcast media. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Rogan Experience has more viewership than most broadcast media.

It has 11 million subscribers and was sold for 250 Million$. Why is it not relevant to mention it? Hayden41 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If its inclusion is in dispute, you will need to work with other editors at the article talk page to reach consensus about adding it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the reason for its exclusion was that the JRE was a "minor show".

Then I was told it was because Newsweek was not a "reliable source".

I added a link to an Article in Variety, and it was edited out. No reason given.

How can we reach consensus if the reasons keep changing? Hayden41 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, from their perspective: you added a minor show. And then you re-added it with an unreliable source. (See WP:NEWSWEEK.) Each time along the way, when you've added it, the removal has stated that there's no consensus for inclusion at the talk page. There still is not consensus. It's not unsurprising, that, even with a Variety source that says he was on the podcast three times, your edit was removed again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their perspective is wrong. Spotify bought the JRE for 250 Million $. You don't buy anything "minor" for 250 million $, not in this Universe. Hayden41 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Hayden41, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Stefan Molyneux does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ixocactus (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. SilverLocust 💬 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

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) 10:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read wp:editwar, especially wp:3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule about avoiding to answer clear questions? Hayden41 (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you have no right to any answer. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:npa and stop attacking other users. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I attacked you? Hayden41 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] saying I am unfit to make an edit [[2]] calling me dishonest. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you refuse to accept that the word "guest" means he was a guest, and you claim the JRE is a "minor" show, even though everybody knows it was bought by Spotify for 200 Million.

I don't know how else to describe it. Hayden41 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with policy, which does not include any caveats about being rights that the person is an idiot. You comment on content, not users. Not as well I could also add that falsely accusing someone of edits warring is also a PA (nor breaching 3RR means you were edit warring). Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I do not think you're an idiot. We probably would get along in real life.

I just don't understand your choices. Hayden41 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should not have called me one, attack me again and I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were an idiot, I said you were unfit to make this specific edit, since your knowledge about the JRE is distorted.

And dishonesty doesn't imply stupidity. Hayden41 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an edit war does not have to be 4 reverts in 24 hours, just a lot of reverts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the dits you just made yourself? Hayden41 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not your constant adding (against multiple users wishes) of the Rogan experience. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user "wishes" are not based on fact and reason. They cannot defend their decision to remove the edit. Hayden41 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not read wp:editwar or you would have seen being right is expclitly stated as not being a reason for it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UnicornBR.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UnicornBR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point

You might also need to read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you requested.

You don't think his appearances on any podcast is relevant information. Hayden41 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not request it, I just said I did not add it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You edited it out, but you made a personal decision to keep the other appearances.

There is a reason for that decision that you are not willing to divulge. Hayden41 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No as I divulged it on the talk page, apples and oranges. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also what has that got to do with your claim I asked for your edit? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

You also need to read wp:bludgeon. |Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule against not answering questions? Hayden41 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have asked a hundred times why you are deliberately favouring the other interviews over the JRE ones, and you still haven't answered with a clear, logical and satisfactory answer. Hayden41 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No but there is a situation where you have been answered and refuse to accept an answer, or (as with your latest addition) where you argue against a point that the user never made. It is (literally) you against everyone else, you making the same points over and over again. If they have not been accepted once they will not be accepted, no matter how many times you reiterate them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept explanations when they don't make sense, are poorly argued and contradict other decisions. Hayden41 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then you need to read wp:tenditious. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]