User talk:SlaterDeterminant

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SlaterDeterminant! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SlaterDeterminant. Thank you.. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for far-right tendentious editing, see ANI and WP:NONAZIS.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 18:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SlaterDeterminant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My recent edits to far-right figures or groups are not based on any bias in favor or against them. I am applying the same standards to these edits that I would for any Wikipedia article. Let me go through my 3 recent edits one by one. 1) Edit to Delaware election wiki. A website called VDARE was listed as endorsing a candidate, however, the relevant article of the VDARE website says it does not endorse candidates, so I removed that endorsement from the list. 2) Edit to David Duke's article. The article described David Duke as a "white supremacist" as if it is an undisputed fact, yet David Duke is on record in reliable sources stating strongly that he is not a "white supremacist". After some discussion, it was decided this was indeed relevant to the article, and it was agreed to add a sentence about this as quoted from the Anti-Defamation League website. 3) Edit to Infowars talk page. I felt the term "far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website" incorrectly implied that the website contains only conspiracy theories and fake news, while it in fact contains some stories that are not conspiracy theories or fake news. However, other editors were opposed to making a change, and I didn't feel strongly about this and I decided not to pursue it. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 4:19 am, Today (UTC+9)

Decline reason:

You are not going to be unblocked on the grounds of "but I thought I was right!" You were blocked because the community saw those edits and could only conclude that either you're yet another alt-righter pretending to be naive or you really are both that naive and unable to stop and learn no matter who tells you to. You're only getting out of this by making it clear that you understand you've made some mistakes and letting us know how you plan to avoid such mistakes in the future (easiest way would be to avoid editing political articles). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SlaterDeterminant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Responding to the "Decline reason" from Ian.thomson from the previous unblock request. I agree that the original edit I made to the David Duke article was a mistake. That is clear, and I apologize for that and the disruption it caused. I agree with Philip Cross's edit, and I should have just done that originally. Regarding the VDARE edit, I think that was pretty straightforward and should be fine. And regarding the Infowars edit, I expressed a concern in the talk page (I never actually made an edit to the Infowars wiki), it was opposed by two other editors, and so I did not pursue it. I think that should also be fine. I would prefer to be able to edit political articles, but I have definitely learned I need to be much more careful about reliable sources. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. Frankly, even accepting the conditions outlined by Ian.thomson would be a hard sell to take back to the community. Yamla (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.