User talk:TheVBW

libalous

You need to read wp:nlt, as saying somethign is libalous may fall foul of it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The WP:NLT page explicitly says that discussing whether something is libellous is not a legal threat. I said in passing that I, a non-lawyer in a non-courtroom found someone's post to be quite libellous, as in, "containing an untrue written statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone". TheVBW (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

True, but I was telling to to be careful. Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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 procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at John Campbell (YouTuber) 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. MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See talk - other editors engaging in wilful blindness. TheVBW (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You should cease engaging in personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 06:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a statement about a plural group of people could be a personal attack? TheVBW (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Because your attack is on a group rather than an individual you think that it ceases to be personal or an attack? That's not how it works. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How is commenting on a group of people's disappointing behaviour of choice a personal attack? TheVBW (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABF when others don't see things the same way as you and then claiming that it's because of the others' bad behaviour is a personal attack. Fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no grounds not to WP:AGF. TarnishedPath^talk 13:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How is pointing out wilful blindness among a group a personal attack? Please answer the question. TheVBW (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not "pointing out" anything, you are imagining something silly and assuming bad faith, which is against Wikipedia's default to WP:AGF. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am open to the idea of said actions on your part being an honest mistake. TheVBW (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You have no identified any "mistake". Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure I have: Ollie repeatedly reverting and writing off my change, shortly after which a slightly different wording of the same meaning was accepted. TheVBW (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And areas wp:editwar, wp:3rr is not a lower limit, and you are edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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 procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

spam - already posted here TheVBW (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read it, one is a about covid, one is about BLP's. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Content is largely the same though. I am aware of BLP TheVBW (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No mal intent on my part TheVBW (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What it is not is spam, please read wp:npa and wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Calm down TheVBW (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)